II Year B.A. LL. B (Div.

-D) – Semester-IV (2023)

1st -Internal Assessment – Family Law II

TOPIC

REETU BHADHA V. HIRA KUNWAR

NAME : SHAZEB MHAISALE

PRN : 22010125332

DIVISION: D

COURSE: BA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2022-2027

REETU BHADHA V. HIRA KUNWAR

 : MANU/CG/0224/2012

(S.A. No. 197 of 1997)

Honorable Judge: Nawal Kishore Agarwal,

INTRODUCTION

The property of an individual is a part of the modern legal systems. It offers the owner not only
the autonomy to own it but also the ability to allocate the resources. It also gives the right to
restrict others from using their owned possessions. In today’s world it is the notions of identity,
status and power.

It is after the death, the property of the deceased shall be passed onto the the successors and shall
be referred as inheritance or succession. Property, as an essential component of human
civilization, reflects not only real assets but also ideas about fairness and equality. The equitable
devolution of property after death is crucial to attaining these objectives because it guarantees
that the deceased's desires are carried out while also respecting the rights of successors. Fairness
in this context includes more than simply legal conformity; it also considers social equity,
familial harmony, and interpersonal stability. Understanding the nature of property necessitates a
deep appreciation for the value of fair distribution, which has a profound influence on individual
legacies, societal harmony, and the integrity of legal institutions.

In the current case the argument is about the succession laws in cases where the deceased
property owner, passed away issueless. The question arises whether the woman who inherites the
property, whether she can devolve it in her family or she is restricted to only the family of the
husband.

BACKGROUND

In the present case the plaintiff is Reetu Bhadha. The plaintiff is bring a suit to declare the sale
deed executed by Hira Kunwar as void. The defendants of the case are Rengtu Chandra and
Ramlal Sonar. The owner of the property is Matharu and after his death the property came into
the possession of Bhudhwara and the late Matharu was issueless. The plaintiff is the real brother
of late Matharu who shall inherit the property but Hira Kunwar is the daughter of Bhudhwara
from previous husband and got her name mutated in the revenue books.

Following the recording of evidence, the trial Court granted the plaintiff's suit for declaration of
title, concluding, among other things, that after Matharu's death, the appellant inherited the suit
property and that respondent No. 1 - Hira Kunwar lacked any right or title to the suit land, nor
did she have authority to sell it. Defendant/respondent No. 1 favored the original appeal. The
first appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling and rejected the suit. This is why there is a
second appeal.

JUDGEMENT

In the Supreme Court case of Lachman Singh v Kirpa Singh , the learned counsel Shri Parag
Kotecha, the words "sons and daughters…..and the husband" in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (henceforth 'Act of 1956') solely refers to the
deceased's children. Respondent no. 1 - Hira Kunwar, Budhwara Bai's daughter from another
marriage - is unable to inherit the property, thus in the absence of a son or daughter, the appellant
takes her place.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS & ANALYSIS

In this case, Reetu Bhadha seeks to reverse Hira Kunwar's sale agreement. The defendants are
Rengtu Chandra and Ramlal Sonar. Matharu's property was transferred to Bhudhwara following
his death, as he had no heirs. Matharu's brother, Reetu Bhadha, is the rightful successor.
However, Bhudhwara's daughter from a previous marriage, Hira Kunwar, got her name added to
the tax documents.
This is the plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging
the decision and decree dated 02.12.1996 issued by the additional District Judge, Sakti, in Civil
Appeal No. 10-A/1996, which overturned the judgment and decree dated 17.05.1996 issued by
the Civil Judge Class-2 in Civil Suit No. 32A of 1993. Can Hira Kunwar, Budhvara Bai's ex-
husband's daughter, take over the land from her mother, who acquired it through her second
husband Matharu?

Section 15 of the aforementioned Act of 1956 states that a female Hindu's property must devolve
in line with Section 16. First, on the boys and daughters, followed by the husband's heirs. Third,
the mother and father, followed by the father's heirs, and finally by the mother's heirs.

The issue in the current case is whether the property shall vest with the appellant who is a brother
to the deceased or it should vest with the daughter of the wife from another husband. The learned
counsel Shri Parag Kotecha referring to Lachman Singh v Kirpa Singh 1mentioned that the "sons
and daughters…..and the husband" in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Hindu
Act, 1956 only refer to the son and daughters of the person who owns the property. According to
the statute the property cannot be inherited by the daughter of Budhhwara Bai being the daughter
of her previous husband. The section 15(1)(e) mentions that in the absence of the ward, the
property shall devolve to the heir, in the present case it is the appellant.

Using the judgement by the bench of Madhya Pradhesh High Court in the case of Bhagwania v.
GIIH2, the learned counsel from the respondent’s side contended that Hira Kunwar shall get the
property and the appeal is devoid of merit.

The rationale behind the said law is to maintain the source of the property. In the case of Bhagat
Ram (D) by [Link]. v. Teja Singh (D) by [Link] 3, it was mentioned while interpreting the said law
that the source of the property from which the female inherits is very important. The reasoning

1 Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh and others, MANU/SC/0417/1987

2 Bhagwania v. GIIH, MANU/MP/0107/1974
3 Bhagat Ram (D) by [Link]. v. Teja Singh (D) by [Link]. MANU/SC/0711/2001
for the same is to avoid even the most remote relatives to acquire the rights to inherit the
property. In the case of Smt. Dhanistha Kalita v. Ramakant Kalita and others 4, the same
reasoning was inferred where it stated that the absence of the word “deceased” followed by “sons
and daughters” clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act of 1956.

Respondent no. 1 - Hira Kunwar, Budhwara Bai's daughter from another marriage - is unable to
inherit the property, thus in the absence of a son or daughter, the appellant takes her place with
respect to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence
the appeal is allowed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 is part of the Hindu Code, along with the Hindu Marriage Act
of 1955, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956, and the Hindu Minority Act. The
Guardianship Act of 1956. These Acts fundamentally transformed the legal situation for Hindus.
It established regulations regarding marriage, succession, and adoption.

4 Smt. Dhanistha Kalita v. Ramakant Kalita and others, MANU/GH/0349/2002

The Hindu Succession Act significantly altered succession regulations, especially for female
Hindus. For the first time, a Hindu woman might be absolute owner of the property. A widow
had the same inheritance rights as a man and had first preference in the succession of her
husband's and father's estates. In 2005, the Hindu Succession Act was revised to allow a
coparcener's daughter from a mixed Hindu household subject to the Mitakshara Law to become a
coparcener in her own right, with the same property rights and obligations as her son.

Section 15 of the aforementioned Act of 1956 states that a female Hindu's property must devolve
in line with Section 16. First, on the boys and daughters, followed by the husband's heirs. Third,
the mother and father, followed by the father's heirs, and finally by the mother's heirs.

The intent of the legislature is to ensure that the source of the property is important for the
devolution of the property. The property inherited by the woman at all instances shall be
devolved upon the heirs of the husband. Although the 174th Law Commission of India in
“Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law” shows patriarchial
notions in the section 15 of the said act of 1956.

The term property has not been well elaborated in the act and involves both movable and
immovable property. The self-acquired property is not been differentiated from inherited
property. The legislators at that time could not predict women having property that is self-
acquired. In certain cases, the property could devolve upon the husband’s heirs who are very
remotely related to the woman. For example, if a woman dies without any ward, her property
shall be devolved upon the second category, i.e the husband’s wards. If her husband's mother is
still alive, her whole inheritance will pass to her mother-in-law. If

If the mother-in-law dies, her property passes to her father-in-law. If her father-in-law is still
living, the property will be transferred to him. If the father-in-law does not survive, the property
will pass to the dead husband's brother and sister. If a Hindu married woman dies intestate, her
self-acquired property passes to her husband's heirs. Her paternal and maternal heirs do not
inherit anything. Nonetheless, her husband's distant relatives will inherit as heirs.
The modification in section 15 of the said act of 1956 shall be made in such a way that the heirs
of the wife do not get neglected during the process of devolution and are entitled to their fair
share. The distinction between self-acquired property and inherited property shall be clear.

The recommendation being made is of equal rights being given to her parental heirs along with
husband heirs to inherit the property,

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

Following the recording of evidence, the trial Court granted the plaintiff's suit for declaration of
title, concluding, among other things, that after Matharu's death, the appellant inherited the suit
property and that respondent No. 1 - Hira Kunwar lacked any right or title to the suit land, nor
did she have authority to sell them. Defendant/respondent No. 1 favored an initial appeal. The
first appellate court overturned the trial court's decision and dismissed the complaint. This
explains why there is a second appeal.

In the Supreme Court case of Lachman Singh v Kirpa Singh, the learned counsel Shri Parag
Kotecha, the phrases "sons and daughters…..and the husband" in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (henceforth 'Act of 1956') only pertains to the
deceased's offspring. Respondent no. 1 - Hira Kunwar, Budhwara Bai's daughter from another
marriage, is unable to inherit the land, thus in the lack of a son or daughter, the appellant
assumes her position.

The objective of section 15 of the said act of 1956 is to maintain the source. Although the
dynamics of the world have changed a lot over the years. Back then women’s rights were not that
well recognized as they are today. Other than the factor of equal share of inheritance for the
mother and the mother-in-law of the wife, there can be several more changes. Proximity can be
a vital area to focus on. The closeness and the significance of the said relative with the deceased
can help determine the claim of inheritance. The more the proximity, the better claim of
inheritance they shall have to the property of the deceased. This aids in solving the issue of
remote relatives inheriting the property.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------