The Supreme Court in the case of (Khushi Ram & Ors vs Nawal Singh& Ors)[Civil Appeal no. 5167 of 2010] ruled that if a female’s father’s heirs are included as individuals who can succeed under the Hindu Succession Act, and it cannot be argued that they are strangers with respect to the female and not members of the family.
Facts of the case
In the present case, Badlu, was the holder of agricultural land and had two sons Bali Ram and Sher Singh. Sher Singh, husband of Jagno died without leaving behind any child and left behind half share in the agricultural land which is the suit property. Jagno being the widow of Sher Singh became the absolute owner of the suit property according to section 14 of the the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Jagno, having no children of her own entered into family settlement with her nephews i.e. sons of her brother giving the land to them.
In 1991, her nephews filed a civil case, applying for a decree confirming ownership of the property in dispute and the trial court passed an order in favor of Jagno’s brother’s sons stating that they have absolute ownership of the suit property.
The children of her late husband’s brother, disapproved such transfer and filed a case contending that no family settlement could have been entered by Jagno in favor of her brother’s children and stated that they are strangers to the family. It was also contended by them that descendants of Jagno’s brother, i.e., her paternal side, a Hindu widow cannot constitute a joint Hindu family. They also argued that a family settlement can only take place between members who have a pre-existing right with respect to that property.
Jagno’s nephews, on the other hand, contended that they are Jagno’s brother’s sons and they are not strangers and family settlement could have been very well entered by Jagno with them. The trial court, district court, and the High Court dismissed the suit filed by Sher Singh’s Brother’s children, resulting in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Analysis by the Supreme Court
In The Apex Court relying on the judgment given in Kale. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119, wherein the Court had explained all the possible ways in which the family settlement could be done and stated that term “family” has to be understood in a broader aspect so that it includes within its fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of prior title, an approximation of a claim or even if they have a spes successionis. In the abovementioned case the two sisters of Kale’s mother entered into family settlement with Kale but he was not a legal heir within the preview of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 but the Supreme Court upheld this family settlement.
The Supreme Court relied on section Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act and stated that a Hindu woman’s father’s heirs cannot be treated as strangers but they fall under the definition of ‘Family’.
Section 15 of the defines the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 15, deals with the general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus for properties inherited by female Hindus.
“15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.—
- The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,—
- firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband;
- secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
- thirdly, upon the mother and father;
- fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
- lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.”
Hence, the Court stated that an examination of Section 15(1)(d) indicates that heirs of the father are covered in the heirs, who could succeed which indicates that when heirs of father of a female are included as person who can possibly succeed, it cannot be held that they are strangers and not the members of the family with respect to the female.
The appeal of the appellants was dismissed by the Supreme court upholding the judgments of the lower courts and the High Court.