Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (3 of 1956) Section 15(1)(d) , 16 – Provides that failing all heirs of the female specified in Entries (a)-(c), but not until then, all her property howsoever acquired will devolve upon the heirs of the father – The devolution upon the heirs of the father shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had belonged to the father and he had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after her death – In the present case the since the succession of the suit properties opened in 1967 upon death of K, the 1956 Act shall apply and thereby RGs daughters ( daughters of the brother of the deceased father of K) being Class-I heirs of their father too shall be heirs and entitled to 1/5th share each (there being one brother and 4 sisters) in the suit properties.
“7. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 groups the heirs of a female intestate into five categories and they are specified under clauses (a) to (e). As per Sections 16 Rule 1 those in one clause shall be preferred to those in the succeeding clauses and those included in the same clause shall take simultaneously. Sub- section (2) of Section 15 begins with a non-obstante clause providing that the order of succession is not that prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 15. It carves out two exceptions to the general order of succession provided under sub-section (1). The first exception relates to the property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother. That property shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of the 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. The second exception is in relation to the property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law. That property shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of the pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to under sub-section (1) in the order specified thereunder but upon the heirs of the husband.
8. The process of identifying the heirs of the intestate under sub-section (2) of Section 15 has been explained in Bhajya v. Gopikabai and Anr. [1978] 3 SCR 561. There this Court observed that the rule under which the property of the intestate would devolve is regulated by Rule 3 of Section 16 of the Act. Rule 3 of Section 16 provides that “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) of 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”.
State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh & Ors. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 108, relied.
“The source from which she inherits the property is always important and that would govern the situation. Otherwise persons who are not even remotely related to the person who originally held the property would acquire rights to inherit that property. That would defeat the intent and purpose of sub-Section 2 of Section 15, which gives a special pattern of succession.
“Bhagat Ram (dead) by LRs. v. Teja Singh (dead) by LRs. (2002) 1 SCC 210 , relied.
(
(2022-1)205 PLR 407 (SC), 2022 SCeJ 0152
Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnuswamy, (2022-1)205 PLR 407 (SC), 2022 SCeJ 0152
