Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that a widow of the pre-deceased son does not have the first right or entitlement to receive any share in the part of property of her mother-in-law. 

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Hima Kohli and Prashant Kumar Mishra has said Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act provided that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16. 

The court pointed out 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, the court said.

"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," it added.

The court allowed a civil appeal in part and modified the High Court's order only to the extent that the plaintiff-respondent no. 1, E Vanaja was not entitled to 1/16th share in her mother-in-law's suit properties.

On the appeal filed by Sachidhanandam through his legal representatives, and having examined the pleadings, evidence and the judgments rendered by the courts below, the bench said, "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, 1956, 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," it further added.

Basing on the evidence available on record, the High Court had 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, the court noted.

Case Title: SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. vs. E. VANAJA AND ORS.