[ Raj Rani & Anr. v. Bimla Rani, AIR 2011, Delhi 170]
A suit was filed by one Bimla Rani (the plaintiff) seeking partition of the suit property. The plaintiff Bimla Rani is the daughter of late Bhola Ram and Smt. Lajo Devi. The defendants are the step-sisters of the plaintiff; the defendants are borne out of the wedlock of late Bhola Ram and Smt. Motia Rani (second wife). Father of the Plaintiff and the defendants late Bhola Ram is common.
The late Bhola Ram was the owner of the suit property. He had by a registered will bequeathed the property to Motia Rani. Motia Rani had by a subsequent will bequeathed the property to her two daughters i.e., the two defendants. There was no dispute that after the death of Bhola Ram by virtue of his will, Motia Rani had become the owner of this suit property. The contention of the plaintiff was that she also being the daughter of Bhola Ram was entitled to a share in the suit property, therefore the suit for partition had been filed. Contention of the defendants was that under the law of succession, the daughters of Motia Rani alone could have inherited this property from Motia Rani and Bimla Devi not being her ‘daughter’, (u/s.15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956); she had no interest in the suit property.
The High Court observed that u/s.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of that Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Thus, there is no dispute that the suit property had devolved upon the Motia Rani in her capacity as a full-fledged owner. The dispute between the heirs was as to whether the expression ‘daughter’ as appearing in section 15(1)(a) includes a step-daughter i.e., the daughter of the husband of the deceased by another wife. The word ‘daughter’ and ‘step-daughter’ have not been defined in the HSA. The expression ‘daughter’ in section 15(1)(a) of the Act would thus include:
(a) daughter borne out of the womb of the female by the same husband or by different husbands and includes an illegitimate daughter; this would be in view of section 3(j) of the HSA.
(b) adopted daughter who is deemed to be a daughter for the purpose of inheritance. Children of a pre-deceased daughter or an adopted daughter also fall within the meaning of the expression ‘daughter’ as contained in section 15(1)(a). If the Legislature had felt that the word ‘daughter’ should include the word ‘step-daughter’, it should have said so in express terms. Thus, the word ‘daughter’ appearing in section 15(1)(a) would not include a ‘step-daughter’ and such a step-daughter, would fall in the category of an heir of her husband as referred to in clause 15(1)(b). When once a property becomes the absolute property of a female Hindu, it shall devolve first on her children (including children of the predeceased son and daughter) as provided in section 15(1)(a) of the Act and then on other heirs, subject only to the limited change introduced in section 15(2) of the Act. The step-sons or step-daughters will come in as heirs only under clause (b) of section 15(1) or under clause (b) of section 15(2) of the Act.
The step-daughter of Motia Rani does not fall in the category of succession as contained in section 15 of the HSA; the expression ‘daughter’ in section 15(1)(a) does not make reference to a ‘stepdaughter’ i.e., a daughter borne to the husband of the deceased female Hindu out of the wedlock with another woman.
