Can A Step-Son Be Treated As A Legal Heir?

Introduction

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“the Act”) lays down the
succession pattern for intestate death of Hindu males and females. In the case
of a Hindu male dying intestate, section 8 of the Act states that his Heirs
being relatives in Class I of the Schedule to the Act are entitled to his
estate. Covered amongst the Class I Heirs are his mother, widow, son and
daughter. A question which arises is that whether a step-son can be treated as
a Class-I Heir for the purposes of the Act? The Act does not define the term
son.

This issue was raised before the Bombay High Court in the Chamber
Summons No. 495/2017 issued in the case of Dudhnath Kallu Yadav vs. Ramashankar Ramadhar Yadav, Suit No.
2219/2000. Let us analyse this interesting issue.

Facts

A Hindu male coparcener, who was party to a suit for an HUF Partition,
died intestate. On his death, his heirs were brought on record as defendants in
the said suit. A step-son of the deceased (son of his wife from her earlier
marriage) also filed a claim for being taken on record as a defendant in the
said suit since he claimed that he too was a legal heir of the deceased. Thus,
this became the issue before the Bombay High Court as to whether a step-son can
be treated as a legal heir of an intestate Hindu under the Hindu Succession
Act?

Bombay High Court’s decision

It may be noted that section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, defines a
child to include a step-child and an adopted child. Hence, for purposes of the
Income-tax Act, a step child would be treated as a relative of an individual.
Accordingly, reliance was placed by the step-son on the income-tax definition
to assert his claim of being a legal heir. The Bombay High Court held that the
claim was clearly preposterous. It is important to note that the controversy
involved a claim to the property of a male Hindu dying intestate. The Schedule
to the Hindu Succession Act refers to Heirs in ClassI within the meaning of
section 8 of that   Act. A son was
included in Class I of the Schedule. The applicant, as son of the wife of the
deceased from her first marriage, could not claim as a son of the deceased. The
expression “son” appearing in the Hindu Succession Act did not include a
step-son. The expression “son” not having been defined under the Hindu
Succession Act, the definition of “son” under the General Clauses Act may be
appropriately referred to. In clause (57) of section 2 of the General Clauses
Act, the expression “son” included only an adopted son and not a step-son. It
held that even otherwise a “son” as understood in common parlance meant a
natural son born to a person after marriage. It is the direct
bloodrelationship, which is the essence of the term “son” as normally understood.
It also held that the Income-tax definition could not be imported into the
Hindu Succession Act.

The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of K.
V. Muthu vs. Angamuthu Ammal (1997) 2 SCC 53, in which it had held that
“son” as understood in common parlance means as natural son born to a
person after marriage. It is the direct blood relationship which is the essence
of the term in which “Son” is usually understood, emphasis being on
legitimacy. In legal parlance, however, “son” has a little wider
connotation. It may include not only the natural son but also the grandson, and
where the personal law permits adoption, it also includes an adopted son. It
would appear that it is not in every case that a son who is not the real son of
a person would be treated to be a member of the family of that person but would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In this decision,
the Supreme Court held that a foster son would also be treated as a son. The
Bombay High Court held that this decision was not of help to the appellant. The
word “son” appearing in Class I of Schedule to the Act would include an adopted
son, but there was no warrant for including a step-son within the meaning of
the expression “son” used in Class I. The context in which the term “son” was
used in the Schedule did not admit of a step-son being included within it.

The Bombay High Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the
case of Lachman Singh vs. Kirpa Singh, 1987 SCR (2) 933 where the
Apex Court, in the context of another section of the Act, had held that a son
does not include a step-son. It held that the words ‘son’ and ‘step-son’ were
not defined in the Act. According to Collins English Dictionary, a ‘son’ meant
a male offspring and ‘step-son’ meant a son of one’s husband or wife by a
former union. Under the Act, a son of a female by her first marriage would not
succeed to the estate of her second husband on his dying intestate. Children of
any predeceased son or adopted son fell within the meaning of the expression
‘sons’.

However, if Parliament had felt that the word ‘sons’ should include
‘step-sons’ also, it would have said so in express terms. The Court noted that
it should be remembered that under the Hindu law as it stood prior to the
coming into force of the Act, a step-son, i.e., a son of the husband of a
female by another wife did not simultaneously succeed to the stridhana of the
female on her dying intestate. In that case the son born out of her womb had
precedence over a step-son.

Parliament would have made express provision in the Act if it intended
that there should be such a radical departure from the past. Hence, it
concluded that the word ‘sons’ in clause (a) of section 15(1) of the Act did
not include ‘step-sons’ and that step-sons did not fall in the category of the
heirs of the husband.

The Bombay High Court accordingly concluded that there was no merit in
the Applicant’s claim to be treated as a legal heir of the deceased defendant
and that he could not claim to defend the suit as such a legal heir.

Similar Verdicts

A similar view has been held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
the case of Mohinder Singh vs. Joginder Singh and Others, RSA No. 1350 of
1981, Order dated 5.12.2008 where the Court held that the heirs,
entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased male Hindu were enumerated in
section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and did not include the son of a
wife from a previous marriage.Again, the Delhi High Court in Maharaja
Jagat Singh vs. Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh, I.A. NO.11365/2010, Order dated
05.12.2017 has also taken a similar view wherein it held that it was of
the opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lachman Singh’s case
(supra) was decisive on the question that step-children could not be
equated to children.

Again in Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware and Others vs. Narayan Keru
Nitanware, WP No. 14090 /2017 Order Dated 15.01.2018, the Bombay High
Court was faced with the issue of the succession pattern of a property of a
Hindu female who died intestate. She had received a property from her parents
and left behind her husband and his children from his earlier marriage. Thus,
she did not leave behind any biological children.  The Bombay High Court held that step-children
are not children for the purposes of the Act and hence, it would be treated as
if she died issueless. Accordingly, the Court held that the property would
revert to her parents’ heirs and not devolve upon her husband and her
step-children.

Outcome

It may be noted that these decisions only impact a case of an intestate
succession. A testamentary succession, i.e., one where a Will is made is on a
different footing. A person can make a Will in favour of any stranger let alone
a step-child. Hence, when it comes to making of a Will, the above decisions
have no say at all and it is only when a person dies without making a valid
Will that these cases would apply. Also, the Income-tax Act is very clear and
specific in as much as section 2 expressly covers a step-child within the ambit
of the term child. The definition of the term relative found in the Explanation
to section 56(2)(x) of the Act, does not use the word ‘child,’ but instead uses
the phrase lineal ascendant or descendant of the individual. The Indian
Succession Act defines a lineal descendant in relation to a person as lineal
consanguinity which subsists between two persons, one of whom is descended in a
direct line from the other, as between a man and his son, grandson, etc.,
in the direct descending line. Hence, it stands to reason that since a child
includes a step-child, the phrase lineal descendant which would include a
child, would also cover a step-child.

The above judgements could also have a bearing on the concessional stamp duty provided for gift deeds under the
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. A concessional duty of Rs. 200 is provided for
gifts of residential house / agricultural properties made to a son / daughter.
A view may now be taken that this would not include step-children. The cases
would also be relevant in the context of Agricultural Laws, such as, the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 which prescribes
a familywise ceiling on agricultural land and defines a family to include a son
of the agriculturist.

Conclusion

The issue of
whether a step-child can be considered to be a legal heir has always been a
vexed one. Considering the rise in the number of divorces and remarriages in
India, it may be worthwhile for the Parliament to have a relook at this issue
and consider amending the laws to expressly provide for succession by
step-children. There is some merit in the argument that after remarriage,
step-children should be entitled to be treated as legal heirs of their
step-father! However, at the same time, he would also be entitled to succeed to
the estate of his biological father since he continues to remain his legal
heir. Would he then become a Class I heir of two fathers? A fascinating
scenario indeed!!