Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: devolution of interest in Poonam vs Dharmender & Ors on 12 September, 2025Matching Fragments
29. Clause (a) of Section 50 is the operative provision that governs the initial stage of devolution, stating that the interest shall devolve upon the male lineal descendants in the male line of descent. This category includes sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, and so forth but only through the male line. The implication is straightforward: succession, in the first instance, is confined strictly to agnatic male heirs.
37. In Har Naraini Devi, where the Supreme Court was seized with the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the DLR Act, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the DLR Act, the Supreme Court made the following observations:
"24. Till 2005, to be specific 9-9-2005, when the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 was enacted, the aforesaid provision remained on the statute. It is not in dispute that the property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 at the time when Mukhtiyar Singh died, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time. In 1997, Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act, was very much on the statute, its subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed Signing Date:15.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 11:46:35 28 KUMAR KAURAV amendment. Therefore, on facts deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act would not help the appellants.
39. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid dicta of Har Naraini Devi. In the present case, Sh. Kanwal Singh expired in 1996, when (2020) 9 SCC 1 Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed Signing Date:15.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 11:46:35 29 KUMAR KAURAV sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act was still in existence. Undoubtedly, the devolution of interest in respect of the suit land would be determinable in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of the death of the grandfather of the plaintiff, and at the relevant point of time, the agricultural holdings in question were solely governed by the DLR Act. Therefore, the rule of succession in terms of Section 50 of the DLR Act, would prevail in the present case and the brothers of the plaintiff would acquire an interest in the bhumidari rights of their father insofar as the agricultural holdings are concerned. The subsequent deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act would not affect the same.