Hindu Succession – Hindu female dying intestate – Her step son falls in category of heirs of husband – Hindu Succession Act 1956. Section 15(10)(b).

The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of his right, title and interest in respect of and recovery of the suit items, which admittedly belonged to one Sampoornammal, who was none other than the stepmother of the plaintiff.

The facts that Sampoornammal, who was the senior wife of Ramasamy Padaiyachi, was the original owner of the property and during the subsistence of the first marriage, Ramasamy Padaiyachi married one Rajammal as his second wife. Rajammal gave birth to the plaintiff through Ramasamy Padaiyachi. Shri Ramasamy Padaiyachi predeceased the senior and junior wives and the senior and junior wives also died thereafter and after their death, the defendant (son of one of the paternal uncles of Sampoornammal – senior wife) has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

The dispute in respect of the suit items arose between the plaintiff/step-son of  Sampoornammal and the defendant,.

The Hon’ble Court observed that the relationship between the parties was not disputed. The plaintiff being the step son of the owner falls in the category of the heir of the husband as referred to in clause (b) of section 15(1) and will come as legal heir of female dying intestate.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (1987) 2 SCC 547 (Lachman Singh vs. Kirpa Singh and others) has categorically laid down that the in the case of a female Hindu dying intestate, a step son, that is, the son of her husband by his another wife falls in the category of the heirs of the husband referred to in clause (b) of section 15(1) and will come in as her heir. That being the legal position, both the courts below by relying on the law so laid down by the Apex court, rightly held that the plaintiff being step son of Sampoornammal, under clause 15(1) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, was entitled to succeed to her property, in the absence of other legal heirs and the denial of his right, title and interest by the defendant insofar as the suit items are concerned, is hence legally not sustainable. When the plaintiff is held to be entitled to the suit items, the possession of the suit items by the defendant without any right would amount to trespass and encroachment. Though the defendant sought to set up title on the strength of release deed executed by the plaintiff’s mother for her herself and on behalf of the plaintiff, who was the erstwhile minor son, the same for want of any right to do so by Rajammal and for want of registration was held to be not valid a document. When release deed is held to be invalid, the question of taking steps to set aside the same for the purpose of establishing the right of the plaintiff did not at all arise.