Holding

The suit property devolved upon the heirs of Rajathiammal's father under Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Summary

Rajathiammal, a female Hindu, acquired suit property from her maternal grandmother through a court‑sanctioned compromise decree. She died intestate and without issue on 1 July 1972. The appellant, V. Dandapani Chettiar, son of Rajathiammal's father, claimed that the property should devolve on the heirs of her father under Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The respondents argued that the property was not inherited from her parents and that either Section 15(1) applied or a will executed by Rajathiammal gave them title. The trial court and the Madras High Court dismissed the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the compromise decree merely affirmed Rajathiammal's pre‑existing right as a daughter of her mother, making the property "inherited" from her mother; consequently, in the absence of any issue, Section 15(2)(a) applies and the property devolves on the heirs of her father. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' judgments.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate provision of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 that governs the devolution of property inherited by a female Hindu who dies intestate and without issue?
Whether the suit property acquired by Rajathiammal through a compromise decree constitutes property "inherited" from her mother for the purposes of Section 15(2)(a).
Whether the alleged will of Rajathiammal is a valid testamentary instrument that overrides the statutory scheme.

Legislation cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 15(1), s. 15(2)(a), s. 16

Subjects

Hindu Succession ActSection 15intestate successionfemale Hinduinheritancecompromise decreeheirs of fatherwill validity

Judgment

V. DANDAPANI CHETTIAR A
v.
BALASUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR (DEAD) BY LRS AND ORS.

AUGUST 8, 2003

[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B

Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Sections 15(2) (a) & 15(1)-Female Hindu,
who had acquired suit property from her mother side by virtue ofa compromise
decree, died intestate and issueiess-Rightful heir to the suit property-Held; C
Would be heirs of her father and not heirs of her husband.
'R', a female Hindu acquired properties of her maternal
grandmother by virtue of a compromise decree passed in a suit. On 'R'
dying issueless and intestate, a suit was filed in the Court of Subordinate
Judge for declaration tliat in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Hindu D
Succession Act, 1956 the said properties devolved upon the heirs of R's
father, i.e. appellant an<i respondents 2-9 and 23. The suit was dismissed.
Appeal before High Court was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Section 15 propounds a definite and uniform scheme E
of succession to the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate after
the commencement of the Act. This section groups the heirs of a .'.'emale
intestate into five categories described as Entries (a) to (e) and specified
in sub-section (1).-Two exceptions both of the same nature are engrafted
by sub-section (2) on the otherwise uniform order of succession prescribed
by sub-section (1). (376-D-E] F
1.2. The two exceptions are that if the female dies without leaving
any issue, then (1) in respect of property inherited by her from her father
or mother, that property will devolve not according to the order laiJ down ·
in the five Entries (a) to (e), but upon the heirs of the father; and (2) in
respect of property inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law it G
will devolve not according to the order laid down in the five Entries (a)
to (e) of subsection (1) but upon the heirs of the husband. (376-G-F]
1.3. The two exceptions mentioned above are confined to property
'inherited' from the father, mother, husband and father-in-law of the
371 H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A female Hindu and do not affect property acquired by her by gift or by
device under a Will of any of them. The present Section 15 has to be read
in conjunction with Section 16 which evolves a new and uniform order of
succession to her property and regulates the manner of its distribution.
In other words, the order of succession in case of property inherited by
B her from her father or mother, its operation is confined to the case of dying
without leaving a son, a daughter or children of any pre-deceased son or
daughter. [376-F-G]

2.1. 'R' died intestate without leaving any son or daughter or
children of predeceased son or daughter. The contention that 'R' .got the
C suit property because .of the compromise decree and, .therefore, the
property is not inherited by .her from her fathe.r or mother is without any
substance. She was entitled to inherit the property of her maternal
grandmother as her mother had expired. As some dispute was raised by
the other heirs, a suit was filed. In that suit, rights of 'R' were recognized
and compromise decree was passed in her favour. Result is - she got the
D property as daughter of her mother. That means, she got the suit property
not from her husband or father-in-law, but from her mother side.
[377-C, D-E]

Ayi Ammal v. Subtamania Asari and Anr., AIR (1996) Madras 369,
referred to.
E
2.2. The case put forward by the first respondent and other
contesting respondents that 'R' inherited the suit property not from her
mother but also from her grand-mother and great grand-mother, and,
therefore, Section 15 (1) of the Act would only apply, cannot at all be
F countenanced. 'R' acquired her rights by virtue of compromise which is
a reiteration and a declaration of her pro-existing right. Therefore, on the
death of 'R' who died intestate and issueless, the suit property devolved
upon the heirs of the father in view of Section 15 (2) (a) of the Act.
[379-A-B]

G Venugopala Pillai v. T. Ammal, AIR (1979) Madras 124, approved.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6626 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.88 of the Madras High Court
H in L.P.A. No. 32 of 1983.
V. DANDAPANI CHETTIAR v. BALASUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 373

K. Ram Kumar and B. Sridhar Reddy, for the Appellant. A
A.T.M. Sampath, V. Balaji and Ms. T.S. Santhi for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The unsuccessful plaintiff who lost his B
case in all the three Courts is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant
(Dandapani Chettiar) filed O.S. No. 300of1974 in the Court of the subordinate
Judge, Cuddalore for a declaration that the suit properties belonged to him
and defendants 2-9 and 23 (respondents 2-9 and 23) and for partition and
separate possession of his l/lOth share in the movables and immovables and C
for recovery of past mesne profits. His case in brief is that the suit properties
came to Rajathiammal and that the properties were obtained by her from her
mother Sivabagyammal. Rajathiammal succeeded to the properties as Stridhana
heir and on the death of Rajathiammal on 01.07 .1972 issue less and intestate,
in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the suit properties devolved upon the D
heirs of the father of kajathiammal i.e. Venugopala Chettiar. The appellant
(plain ti ft) and the respondents 2-8 (defendants 2-8) are the children nf the
said Venugopala Chettiar through his wife and the 9th defendant(9th
respondent) is the son of the said Venugopala Chettiar through another wife
and the respondent No.23 (defendant No.23) is one of his wives and they are
~~~ E
The case of the first respondent Balasubramanian Chettiar ~died) and
the other respondents is that on the death of Rajathiammal, the suit properties
devolved upon the heirs of the husband of Rajathiammal, namely,
Muthukumarasami under Section 15(1) of the Act in the absence of any F
issues to her. In the alternative, the respondents contended that Rajathiammal
executed a Will, Exhibit B-26, dated 15.06.1972 and that in accordance with
the said Will, there would be a testamentary succession for the first respondent
- Balasubramanian Chetiar and the others.

The Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore framed as many as 22 issues. The G
Sub-Court took the view that the suit properties came to Rajathiammal only
because of the Compromise Decree in O.S. Nos.8 of 1926 filed by one
Natanasabapathy - son of Sivabagyam and 15 of 1942 and her pre-existing
right has no relevance. The Sub-Court also held that only Section 15(1) of
the Act is attracted which would be in favour of the first respondent
Balasubramanian Chettiar and his supporting respondents/defendants. As H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A regards the alleged Will, Exhibit B-26, the trial Court held that it is a true and
valid document executed by Rajathiammal. On these findings, the trial Court
negatived the appellant's/plaintiffs claim and dismissed the suit.

. The appellant preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 1055 of 1977, in the High
Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that the suit
B properties devolved upon Rajathiammal not by inheritance from her mother
but as Stridhana heir of her grand-mother under the compromise decrees in
O.S. No. 8 of 1926 and O.S. No. 15 of 1942 granting the properties to her
and, therefore, Section 15{1) of the Act alone applies, dismissed the appeal
of the appellant by a judgment dated 17.12.1982. The learned Single Judge
C also held that the Will, Exhibit B-26, pleaded by the first defendant/first
respondent herein and found to have been executed by Rajathiammal by the
trial Court, is not a Will that has been proved and, therefore, the finding of
the trial Court regarding the Will was set aside in the appeal.

The appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal No. 32 of 1983 to a
D Division Bench of the said High Court. The Division Bench held that the
property of Rajathiammal will devolve as per Section 15(1) and not Section
15(2) and that the property does not devolve on the plaintiff, the appellant
herein and respondents 2-9/defendants 2-9. Therefore, the argument of the
appellant/plaintiff that on the death of Sengamalam and Thaiyanayagi,
Sivabagyam got absolute right in the properties was unacceptable. Holding
E so, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of the appellant
on 12.04.1988 by rejecting the contentions of the appellant that it is only
Section 15(2) of the Act that applies in the instant case. Aggrieved by the
decision, say aforesaid, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal in this Court.

F We heard Mr. K. Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. A.T.M. Sampath learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Mr. K
Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff took us through the
pleadings and the judgments passed by the trial Court and of the High Court
and also the compromise .decrees in O.S. No. 8 of 1926 and O.S. 15 of 1942.
Mr. K. Ram Kumar submitted that since the properties have been got by
G Rajathiammal by compromise decrees (Exhibits B 1-84), they cannot be said
to be. the properties inherited by her mother and, therefore, the contentions
of the respective parties will have to be considered and a conclusion arrived
at regarding the question whether Section 15(1) of the Act is applicable or
Section 15(2) of the Act is applicable in the matter of succession of the
H properties of late Rajathiammal. In other words, as. per the provisions of the
V. DANDAPANI CHETTIAR v. BALASUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR [LAKSHMANAN,J.] 375
Act, the appellant/plaintiff and his brothers and sisters, namely, defendants 2- A
9 and his mother defendant 23 are the heirs of Rajathiammal and they are
entitled to the properties.

Per contra, Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents, submitted that Rajathiammal executed a Will, Exhibit B-26,
dated 15.06.1972 under which she bequeathed absdute interest in some of B
the properties to Balasubramanian Chettiar, the first defendant/first respondent
and some of the properties to his son Saravanan and limite(i interest in other
items of properties to others like one Subramaniam Chettiar, husband of
Rajalakshmi (D-6) V. Krishnasamy Chettiar (D-9) and Nagalakshmiammal
(D-25) directing the remainder in some of the properties to be vested in the · C
first respondent/first defendant and in some other properties in his son
Saravanan. There was also some direction to the first respondent for performing

-
Brahmotsavam at a temple at Thiruppapuliyur etc. out of income from the
properties items 8 and 9 mentioned in the second schedule. It was further
contended by Mr. Sampath that after the death of Rajathiammal he took
possession of the properties as per the terms of the Will and effected D
improvements and leased out some of the properties also. Therefore, the first
respondent and other respondents, who are the beneficiaries under the Will
are entitled to the properties and even ifthe Will is not there and Rajathiammal
died intestate, the contesting defendants alone are entitled to the properties as
heirs of Rajathiammal under the Act.
E
The question, therefore, is who will succeed to the properties left by
Rajathiammal (got by her under compromise decrees B-2 and B-8 dated
27.08.1927 and 19.09.1949) in O.S. No.8 of 1926 and O.S. No.15 of 1942
respectively on her death on 01.07.1972 as between the appellant/plaintiff
and respondents 2-9/defendants 2-9 on the one hand and the first defendant/ F
first respondent and other contesting respondents on the other hand. Before
we proceed further, it is useful to reproduce the relevant provision, namely,
Section 15 of the Act, which reads thus:

"15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.-
G
(l) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve
according to the rule set out in section 16,-

(a) firstly, upon the sons and the daughters (including the children
of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and also the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A (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
B of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased
son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-
section (I) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs
of the father; and

c (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband
or from her father-in-Jaw shall devolve, in the absence of
any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children
of &ny pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other
heirs referred to in sub-section (I) in the order specified
therein, but upon the heirs of the husband."
..
D
The above section propounds a definite and uniform scheme of
succession to the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate after the
commencement ofthe Act. This section groups the heirs of a female intestate
into five categories described as Entries (a) to (e) and specified in sub-section
,(-1): Two exceptions both of the same nature are engrafted by sub-section(2)
E on the otherwise uniform order of succession prescribed by sub-section (1).
The two exceptions are that if the female dies without leaving any issue, then
(I) in respect of property inherited by her from her father or mother, that
property will devolve not acc9'<fing to the order laid down in the five Entries
(a) to (e), but upon the heirs of the father; and (2) in respect of property
F inherited by her from her husband or father-in~law it will devolve not according
to the order laid down in the five Entries (a) to (e) of sub-section (I) but upon
the heirs of the husband. The two exceptions mentioned above are confined
to property 'inherited' from the father, mother, husband and father-in-law of
the female Hindu and do not affect property acquired by her by gift or by
device under a Will of any of them. The present Section 15 has to be read
G in conjunction with Section 16 which evolves a new and uniform order of
succession to her property and regulates the manner of its distribution. In
other words, the order of succession in case of property inherited by her from
-
her father or mother, its operation is confined to the case of dying without
leaving a son, a daughter or a children of any pre-deceased son or daughter.

H Sub-section (2) of Section 15 carves out an exception in case of a
V. DANDAPANI CHETTIAR v. BALASUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 377
female dying intestate without leaving son, daughter or children of a pre- A
deceased son or daughter. In such a case, the rule prescribed is to find out
the source from which she has inherited the property. If it is inherited from
)i her father or mother, it would devolve as prescribed under Section 15(2)(a).
If it is inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law, it would devolve
upon the heirs of her husband under Section 15(2)(b). The clause enacts that

- in a case where the property is inherited by a female from her father or
mother, it would devolve not upon the other heirs, but upon the heirs of her
father. This would mean that if there is no son 01 daughter including the
children of any pre-deceased son or daughter, then the property would devolve
B

upon the heirs of her father. Result would be - if property is inherited by a
female from her father or her mother, neither her husband or his heirs would c
get such property, but it would revert back to the heirs of her father.

- In the present case, it is not disputed that Rajathiammal died intestate
without leaving any son or daughter or children of pre-deceased son or
daughter. Hence, the property would devolve on the heirs of her father. It is
contended that she got the property because of the compromise decree and,
therefore, the property is not inherited by her from her father or mother. This
D

submission, in our view, is without any substance. She was daughter of
Sivabagyammal and, therefore, she was entitled to inherit the property of her
maternal grandmother as her mother had expired. As some dispute was raised
by the other heirs, a suit was filed. In that suit, rights of Rajathiammal were
recognized and compromise decree was passed in her favour. Result is - she
E
got the property as daughter of her mother. That means, she got the property
not from her husband or father-in-Jaw, but from her mother side. In that state
of affairs, the heirs of her father, that is, heirs of S.V. Venugopala Chettiar
would be entitled to inherit her property in view of Section 15(2)(a) of the
Act. F
~ A passage in the case of Ayi Ammal v. Subramania Asari and Anr:,
AIR (1966) Madras 369 can be beneficially reproduced hereunder:

"The succession to a female Hindu generally is provided for under
Sub-section (l) of Section 15 an exception has been engrafted under G
sub-section (2) recognizing a different mode of devolution in respect
of property which the woman acquired by inheritance, in a way to a
very limited extent recognizing the old Hindu law in the matter which
restricted a woman's estate in inherited property and provided for its
devolution as from the last full owner. Prima facie, the exception
engrafted seeks to retain in the father's family property inherited by H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the deceased lady from her parents and similarly seeks to retain in the
husband's family properly inherited from her husband or father-in-
law. The word "inherit" means to receive as heir, that is, succession
by descent."

In the case reported in Venugopal Pillai v. T. Ammal, AIR (1979)
B Madras 124, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court observed that in
cases where the female Hindus acquired rights by virtue of compromise is a
reiteration and a declaration of a pre-existing right of the female Hindus.

The respective case of the parties, as contended by their respective
counsel, has already been summarized in the above paragraphs. It is not in
C dispute that Rajathiammal died intestate and got certain items by way of
compromise in Suit No. 8/1926 and in Suit No. 15/1942 filed by
Natanasabapathy. Items l to 3, 5 and 8 to 18 in the plaint second schedule
were allotted to Rajathiammal under the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.
8/1926. Likewise, items 4,6 and 7 were given to Rajathiammal under the
D compromise decree passed in O.S.No.15/1942. Thus all the items got by
Rajathiammal were under the compromise decree in both the suits.

. We have given our thoughtful consideration on the arguments advanced
by the counsel for the appellant and the coµnsel for the respondents with
specific reference to the pleadings, evidence exhibits, records and the
E judgments impugned in this appeal. The submission made by learned counsel
for the appellant-plaintiff merits acceptance. The trial Court, the learned single
Judge and the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court are
in error in dismissing or rejecting the case of the appellant/plaintiff.

In our opinion, the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that it is only
F Section 15 (2) of the Act that applies in the instant case to the properties of
Rajathiammal upon her death on 1.7.1972 has support and well founded. The
High Court having been upheld the finding of the learned single Judge that
Ex.B-26, a Will ext;cuted by Rajathiammal, according to the first respondent,
is not a Will that is proved to have been executed by her, should have further
G held that the properties devolved upon the heirs of the father ofRajathiammal
in accordance with Section 15(2)(a) of the Act.

It will be seen from the facts of the present case that Rajathiammal had
inherited the property from her mother, the section applicable will be Section
J.5(2) of the Act, according to which the properties will go to the heirs of her
H father.and, therefore, the plaintiff/appellant and defendants 2-9/respondents
V. DANDAPANI CHETIIAR v. BALASUBRAMANIAN CHETIIAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 379
2-9 who are the sons and daughters of Rajathiammal's father, Venugopal A
Chettiar, through his third wife Nagalakshmi would be entitled to the suit
properties. Therefore, the case put forward by the first defendant and other
contesting defendants that Rajathiammal inherited the properties not from her
;. mother but also from her grand-mother and great grand-mother, and, therefore,
Section 15(1) of the Act would only apply cannot at all be countenanced.
B
In the instant case, Rajathiammal acquired her rights by virtue of
compromise which is a reiteration and a declaration of her pre-existing right.
Therefore, on the death of Rajathiammal who died intestate and issueless, the
suit properties devolved upon the heirs of her father, Venugopal Chettiar.
The present plaintiff/appellant, V. Dandapani Chettiar, who is the son of the C
father of Rajthiammal through his third wife and respondents 2-9 and 23 who
are children of the father of Rajathiammal and one of his wives becomes the
heirs and entitled to succeed under Section 15(2) (a) of the Act since the
properties came to Rajathiammal under the compromise decree amounts to a
declaration of her pre-existing right under the compromise decree passed by
the Courts. D
In our opinion, the plaintiff/appellant and respondents 2 to 9 and 23/
defendants 2-9 and 23 are the only rightful heirs of Rajathiammal and would
be entitled to succeed to the properties of Rajathiammal.

For the foregoing reasons, we have no hestitation to set aside the E
judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Judge, Cuddalore as confirmed
by the learned single Judge of the High Court in A.S. No.1055 of 1977 and
by the Division Bench of the High Court in L.P.A. No. 32/1983 dated
12.4.1988.

Therefore, this appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant succeeds. F
Considering the relationship of the parties to this action, there shall be no
order as to costs.

B.B. Appeal allowed.

-