SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS.versusE. VANAJA AND ORS.

                  [2023] 14 S.C.R. 240 : 2023 INSC 984



                             CASE DETAILS

    SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS.
                                      v.
                         E. VANAJA AND ORS.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 3667 of 2018)
                          NOVEMBER 06, 2023
                 [B. R. GAVAI, HIMA KOHLI AND
                PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]

                              HEADNOTES

      Issue for consideration: Whether under the provisions of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, the widow of the pre-deceased son has the first right
or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law.
     Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss. 15 (1)(a) and 16 – Rules of
succession in the case of female Hindus – Order of succession and
manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu – First right of
widow of the pre-deceased son to receive any share in the share of her
mother-in-law:
      Held: A combined reading of s. 15(1)(a) and s. 16 would make it
manifest that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve,
firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-
deceased son or daughter) and the husband – Thus, the plaintiff being the
widow of the pre-deceased son does not have the first right or entitlement
to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law – No perversity in the
findings recorded by the High Court holding that all the suit properties are
joint family properties – However, the High Court is not correct in allotting
1/16th share to the plaintiff out of the share of her mother-in-law in the suit
properties – Impugned judgment rendered by the High Court is modified
only to the said extent. [Para 13, 10, 14]
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3667 of 2018.
                                     240
SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. v. 241
                E. VANAJA

     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2014 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in SA No.76 of 2009.
     With
     Civil Appeal No.7493 of 2023
     Appearances:
     Balaji Srinivasan, Shiva Krishnamurthi, Ms. Monisha Handa, Rajul
Shrivasstav, K. Krishna Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                               JUDGMENT

     PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
     Delay condoned in filing Special Leave Petition(C) Diary No(s). 7823
of 2018.
    2. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). _____________
@ Special Leave Petition(C) Diary No(s). 7823 of 2018.
     3. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant no. 2
(Sachidhanandam) assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and
decree passed by the High Court, allowing the regular second appeal in part,
preferred by the plaintiff (E. Vanaja-respondent no. 1 herein).
      4. Plaintiff’s suit for partition was allowed by the trial Court allotting
her 1/8th share in the suit properties. On appeal by the defendant no. 2, the
First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part holding that the plaintiff/
respondent no. 1 is entitled to 1/16th share in suit ‘B’ and ‘C1’ schedule
properties. At the same time, the First Appellate Court granted liberty to
the plaintiff to work out her remedy for mesne profits with regard to ‘C1’
schedule property and items 25 to 30 in ‘B’ schedule properties by filing a
separate proceeding under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. As against this, the
High Court in second appeal has held that after the death of the plaintiff’s
husband, namely, Elangovan, and her mother-in-law, the plaintiff is entitled
to 1/7th share out of 1/8th and 1/16th of her mother-in-law’s share in the ‘B’,
‘C’ and ‘C1’ schedule properties.
242           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 14 S.C.R.


     5. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is the widow and the sole heir of
Elango, the third son of Nallathambi Chettiar whereas the defendants are
the widow, sons and daughters and grand-sons of the said Nallathambi
Chettiar. It would be appropriate to refer the genealogical tree as mentioned
in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint to appreciate the relations between the parties.




      6. The plaintiff preferred a suit for partition claiming 1/8th share, or such
shares as the Court thinks fit, in the suit properties described in schedules
‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘C1’ as also for mesne profits. It was the case of the plaintiff that
‘B’ schedule properties are self-acquired properties of Nallathambi Chettiar,
whereas the ‘C’ schedule properties have been purchased by defendant nos.
1 to 4 from the income earned from the ‘B’ schedule properties and ‘C1’
schedule properties are also joint family properties, therefore, the plaintiff
is entitled to 1/8th share in all the properties.
      7. The defendants admitted the relationship between the parties.
According to them, the plaintiff can claim a share in respect of her deceased
husband’s share in the joint family properties. It was stated that on the
date of the death of the plaintiff’s husband, his 1/8th share in the estate of
Nallathambi Chettiar devolved equally on his wife, the plaintiff herein and
his mother (Elangovan’s mother) who died during the pendency of the suit.
Thus, the plaintiff is entitled only to 1/16th share in ‘B’ schedule properties.
In respect of ‘C’ schedule properties, it was the case of the defendants that
SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. v. 243
     E. VANAJA [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.]

except for items 15 and 16 standing in the name of the plaintiff’s deceased
husband, other properties do not belong to the joint family. No part of the
income from the joint family properties has been utilized for the purchase
of properties in the individual names of defendant nos. 2 to 4 and 8.
       8. Both parties have led evidence, oral and documentary before the
trial Court basing upon which the trial Court held that the defendants have
not established the veracity of the Will dated 01.02.2000 executed by the
deceased-1st defendant (Nagammal), therefore, they are not entitled to claim
the rights in respect of the properties mentioned in the Will. The trial Court
categorically held that the properties mentioned in schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ are
jointly family properties and the plaintiff is entitled to her share therein to the
extent of 1/8th. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff/respondent
is entitled to 1/16th share in suit ‘B’ and ‘C1’ schedule properties. In respect
of ‘C’ schedule properties, it was held by the First Appellate Court that the
same are not joint family properties and, thus, are not liable for partition.
     9. The second appeal was heard by the High Court on the following
substantial questions of law:-
      “(a) In view of the admission of DW1 that the properties were
      purchased from out of the joint family income, whether the lower
      appellate court has erred in modifying the decree and judgment of
      trial court?
      (b) When the Will under Ex. B12 was not proved as per law, whether
      the finding of lower appellate court regarding truth of Ex.B12 tenable
      in law?
      (C) Whether the dismissal of suit filed by the plaintiff in respect of
      the items of properties standing in the name of D1 to D4 and D8 is
      sustainable?”
      Basing on the evidence available on record, the High Court found that
the properties and the business of the joint family continued to be in joint
possession of both the parties and, therefore, the status of the joint family
both, backwards and forward must be taken into account by the Court. The
High Court eventually held that all the plaint schedule properties are joint
family properties.
244               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      10. Having examined the pleadings, evidence and the judgments
rendered by the courts below, we do not find any perversity in the findings
recorded by the High Court holding that all the suit properties are joint family
properties. However, in view of the provisions contained in Sections 15 (1)
(a) and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 19561, the High Court is not correct
in allotting 1/16th share to the plaintiff out of the share of her mother-in-law
in the ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘C1” schedule properties.
     11. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act need to be referred which are re-
produced hereunder:
        “15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.-(1) The
        property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to
        the rules set out in section 16,—
        (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any
        pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;
        (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
        (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
        (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
        (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
        (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),—
        (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother
        shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased
        (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon
        the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified
        therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
        (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from
        her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter
        of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or
        daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the
        order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.



1     (for short, ‘the Act’)
SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. v. 245
     E. VANAJA [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.]

     16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of
     a female Hindu.—The order of succession among the heirs referred
     to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestates property
     among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules,
     namely:—
     Rule 1.—Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15,
     those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry
     and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously.
     Rule 2.—If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased
     the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the
     intestate’s death, the children of such son or daughter shall take
     between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken
     if living at the intestate’s death.
     Rule 3.—The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs
     referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-
     section (2) to section 15 shall be in the same order and according to
     the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the
     father’s or the mother’s or the husband’s as the case may be, and
     such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after
     the intestate’s death.”
      12. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act provide that the property of a female
Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section
16. Section 15(1)(a) provides that such devolution shall be firstly, upon
the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or
daughter) and the husband. The rule for distribution of the intestate property
of a female Hindu and order of succession is provided under Section 16 of
the Act according to which, the order of succession among the heirs of a
female Hindu referred to in Section 15 shall be firstly, as per rule 1 thereof,
among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act.
      13. A combined reading of Section 15(1)(a) and Section 16 of the Act
would make it manifest that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate
shall devolve, firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of
any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband. Therefore, the plaintiff
being the widow of the pre-deceased son does not have the first right or
entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law.
246            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      14. For the foregoing reasons, we allow Civil Appeal No. 3667 of 2018
in part. The impugned judgment rendered by the High Court shall stand
modified only to the extent that the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is not entitled
to 1/16th share in the share of her mother-in-law in the suit properties. The
judgment and decree passed by the High Court is, thus, affirmed subject to
the above modification.
     15. Resultantly, the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) Diary No(s).
7823 of 2018 filed by the plaintiff stands disposed of in the above stated
terms.
      16. The parties shall bear their own costs.


Headnotes prepared by:                                      Appeals disposed of.
Nidhi Jain