General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.

 

General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.-
 
 
(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,-
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband.
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband.
(c) thirdly, upon the heirs of the father, and
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father, and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father, and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter ) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.
Advertisements

Rights of daughters in joint Hindu Family Property.

 

The plaintiffs claim that the amended Section 6 of the Act provides that the daughterof a coparcener in the joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, shall by birth, become coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son and, therefore, they alongwith their sister, defendant No.3 being the daughters of late Shri Rajinder Nath, a coparcener of the HUF, became coparceners therein by birth in their own right in the same manner as defendant No.2, their brother and hence, they are entitled to seek partition of the two HUF branches of Shri Rajinder Nath and Shri Ram Chander Nath (defendants No.1 and 4) as the said HUFs had continued with joint family business with undivided common HUF assets that were allocated to them in equal share under the Award dated 26.10.1978.
To see the complete judgments, click the link below:

Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute Property.

 

(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.- In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or note, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.

partial partition of joint undivided property.

 

The suit property is claimed to be the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. In 1948, the defendant No. 1 executed a will with the ill motive of bequeathing all the properties to defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff instituted T.S.2/49 for partition of the ancestral lands located at Angapada. That suit was decreed and the decree was affirmed even by this Court. On the plea that the properties now in the suit which are located . at village Turada are also the joint family properties and have been left out of partition on the earlier occasion, the present suit has been filed. It is claimed that on 27-9-1958 the defendant No. 1 executed the sale deed for the suit land in favour of defendants 4 and 5 which is a void transaction. The plaintiffs claim that they have their 1/4th interest in the suit lands.
The defence of defendants 1, 2 and 3 jointly is that the suit is barred both under Section 11 and under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. The suit property is not the joint family property, but it is the self-acquired property of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is not in possession of this property for more than 12 years and as such his present suit is barred by limitation.
 The learned trial Judge came to hold that the suit lands were ancestral joint family property; the suit was not barred under Sec-tion 11 nor under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code; the suit was also not bad on the theory of partial partition. He further found that the sale deed dated 27-9-1958 in favour of defendants 4 and 5 was not binding on the plaintiffs and he accordingly decreed the suit.

distribution of the intestate property among legal heirs of female hindu.

 

The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestate property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely:-
Rule 1 .- Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those including in the same entry shall take simultaneously.
Rule 2.- If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate’ death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestate’s death.
Rule 3.—The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) to section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father’s or the mother’s or the husband’s as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate’s death.

grandson right in the grandfather’s property.

 

grandson would get right in the grandfather’s property.

The principles laid down in the above said decisions throw much light on the subject. In view of the illuminating judicial pronouncements as decided in Chander Sen case supra Schedule-I in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not include a son’s son. When a hindu dying interstate, the first class heirs namely, the heirs mentioned in Schedule-I, namely, son, daughter, widow and brother shall take equally to the exclusion of the other heirs, including son’s son. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in that case that the earlier law which gives right to a son’s son, seized to exist on the advent of the Hindu Succession Act. By introducing a scheme of devolution under Section 8 of the Act, a son’s son of the hindu interstate has specifically been excluded. The earlier position that the grandson would get right in the grandfather’s property did not continue after passing of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has described this position in the said decision as the hindu law giving a right by birth in such property "seized to have effect". In view of this legal position, the plaintiff in the present case did not acquire right by birth in the property which came to the hands of his father by partition after the death of his grandfather. Hence, he is not entitled to get partition in the property. Both these points are answered in negative.

Following the settled positions as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this High Court, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of the plaintiff is barred under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act since he has been specifically excluded from inheriting the property belonged to his grandfather. Hence, the judgment and decree of the Court below deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The appeal has to be allowed.

Division of property after death, if there is no Will.

 

Distribution of property after death, if there is no Will.

General rules of succession in the case of males.-
The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter-
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class 1 of the Schedule.
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule.
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased, and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognate of the deceased.
COMMENTS
Ownership of property
When a Hindu inherits the property from his father under section 8 he takes it as his separate property and not as joint family property vis-a-vis his sons; Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1752.
Scope
The property in section 8 includes agricultural land also; Tukaram Genba Jadhav v. Laxman Genba Jadhav, AIR 1994 Bom 247.
9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule.-
Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs, those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry, those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry, and so on in succession.
10. Distribution of property among heirs in class 1 of the Schedule. –
The property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in class I of the Schedule in accordance with the following rules:-
Rule1.- The intestate’s widow, or if there are more widow than one, all the widows together, shall take one share.
Rule 2.- The surviving sons and daughter and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share.
Rule 3.- The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share.
Rule 4.- The distribution of the share referred to in Rule 3-
(i) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased son shall be son made that his widow (or widows together) and the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions, and the branch of his pre-deceased sons gets the same portion.
(ii) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased daughter shall be so made that the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions.
11. Distributions of property among heirs in class II of the Schedule. –
The property of an intestate shall be divided between the heirs specified in any one entry in class II of the Schedule so that they share equally.