Sashidhar Bank & Ors. vs. Ratnamani Barik & Anr. AIR 2014 Orissa 202
One Lata was first married to Hrushi, who died prior to 1956 leaving behind his widow (Lata) and daughter Ratnamani (the plaintiff) as his successors. Ratnamani had only one daughter, namely, Banabasi.
After the death of Hrushi, his widow Lata married Kalakar, who also died prior to 1956 leaving behind Lata as his only successor-in interest. Kalakar had one brother, namely, Kantha. After the death of Kalakar, his widow Lata filed a suit and got the share of Kalakar allotted to her and, getting delivery of possession thereof, she continued to remain in possession of the same. During her life time, for her legal necessity she had sold land to different persons.
The plaintiff’s case that the scheduled land, which is also a part of the properties Lata had got in the partition, has been bequeathed by Lata under an unregistered Will executed in favour of Banabasi, who is Lata’s granddaughter and on the strength of that Will Banabasi, has been in possession and enjoyment of scheduled property.
After the death of Lata, it is claimed, the plaintiff has been in possession of the scheduled properties. It is alleged that D-2 to D-12, being agnates of Kalakar (Lata’s second husband), created disturbance in plaintiff’s possession over the suit land. Hence, the suit for declaration of her right, title and interest in respect of schedule properties. The plaintiff has also sought for declaration of her title over scheduled land in case no title is found to have been passed on to Banabasi under the aforestated Will.
The learned Courts below had recorded concurrent findings that by operation of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short, the Act) Lata became full owner in respect of the property she got in suit and the plaintiff Ratnamani being Lata’s natural daughter through her first husband would succeed to all the properties in respect of which Lata died intestate, irrespective of the fact that the source of the property is Lata’s second husband, who is not the father of the plaintiff.
The Court relied on the case of Keshri Parmai Lodhi and another vs. Harprasad and others, reported in AIR 1971 MP 129, wherein their Lordship observed that from the language used in sub-section (1) and (2) of section 15 of the Act, it is clear that the intention of the Legislature is to allow succession of the property to the sons and daughters of the Hindu female and only in the absence of any such heirs the property would go to the husband’s heirs.
In the Text Book: Principles of Hindu Law by D.F. Mulla, it is commented on section 15(1)(a) of the Act that in case of a female intestate who had remarried after the death of her husband or after divorce her sons by different husbands would all be her natural sons and entitled to inherit the property left by the female Hindu regardless of the source of the property.
The Court observed that in the case at hand, if Lata’s daughter born to her first husband is considered to be her daughter coming within the expression ‘daughter’ appearing in section 15 of the Act, then sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Act would govern the situation. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that being a daughter born out of the womb of Lata by her first husband the plaintiff-respondent No.1 comes within the expression ‘daughters’ appearing in section 15(1)(a) of the Act and with the application of Rule-1 of section 16 of the Act, the Appellants, who are coming within the expression ‘heirs of the husband’, are to be kept from succeeding to the properties left behind by Lata even though she inherited the same from her second husband-Kalakar and he is not the father of plaintiff-respondent No.1.
Therefore, it was rightly held that plaintiff-Ratnamani succeeded to the suit properties consequent upon the death of her mother Lata and that the Appellantsdefendant Nos. 2 to 12 are not entitled to inherit the property of Lata.
