Summary
A Hindu male died intestate in 1949 owning separate property, which his sole surviving daughter inherited in preference to collateral relatives. The family’s joint status did not turn his admitted separate acquisition into coparcenary property. When the daughter died issue less in 1967, the Hindu Succession Act governed further devolution. The Court recognised the claimed one-fifth shares, set aside dismissal of the partition suit and directed a preliminary decree.
Issues
- Whether the sole daughter inherited her father’s separate property when succession opened before the Hindu Succession Act.
- How the inherited property devolved when the daughter died issue less after the Act commenced.
Provisions considered
- Section 14, Hindu Succession Act, 1956The Act made the female holder’s inherited estate absolute; any earlier controversy over the nature of the daughter’s estate did not determine succession on her death in 1967. (¶ 68-70)
- Section 15(2)(a) and Section 16, Rule 3, Hindu Succession Act, 1956Source-based succession applied to the father’s property inherited by the daughter who died issue less; the relevant heirs were determined under the Act. (¶ 70-77)
Held
- The concurrent finding that the father died in 1949 was retained. The defendants expressly admitted in their written statement that the auction-purchased properties were his absolute properties, and had not pleaded acquisition from joint-family funds; a separate issue and evidence on that admitted fact were unnecessary. (¶ 14-17.1)
- Under the applicable pre-1956 Hindu law, separate or self-acquired property devolved by inheritance rather than survivorship. A daughter could inherit in preference to collaterals, notwithstanding the family’s joint status. The sole surviving daughter therefore inherited the father’s separate property here. (¶ 43-67)
- The daughter died in 1967, so the Act governed the subsequent succession. Section 15(2) creates source-based exceptions for inherited property when the female leaves no son, daughter or descendants of a predeceased son or daughter; Rule 3 of Section 16 supplies the corresponding order of succession. (¶ 68-76)
- The daughters in the collateral branch could not be excluded solely because the original male owner died before 1956. Applying the Act to succession opening on the daughter’s death, the Court recognised the one-fifth shares, decreed the suit and directed a preliminary decree, leaving final-decree proceedings to the appropriate court. (¶ 74-82)
Result
Appeal allowed; dismissal decrees set aside and partition suit decreed; preliminary decree directed, with no order as to costs.