JUDGMENT : The short question for determination in this appeal is, whether the property of a Hindu female dying intestate would, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, devolve on her son or daughter from a previous husband, or upon the heirs of the husband under clause (b). 2. The facts, in brief are as follows : The plaintiff, Gilli, brought a suit for declaration of title to, and possession of, the suit lands and house, alleging that the property constituted joint family property and, therefore, devolved on him by survivorship. That claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant, Mst. Bhagwania. She alleged that the property was the separate property of Kandhai. She further alleged that, upon the death of Kandhai in the year 1952, the property was inherited by his widow, Mst. Chaturia. The defendant is the daughter of Mst. Chaturia from her previous husband. 3. The Courts below have decreed the plaintiff’s claim, holding that the suit property was the separate property of Kandhai and, on his death in 1952, it was inherited by his widow Mst. Chaturia; that Mst. Chaturia, being possessed of the property, became the absolute owner thereof under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act; and that, upon her death in 1958, the property devolved on the plaintiff. The findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, being based on appreciation of evidence, are binding in second appeal. 4. The only question that arises in this appeal is as to who is the preferential heir under section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Sub-sections - (1) and (2) of the section, so far as relevant, read— “15. The findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, being based on appreciation of evidence, are binding in second appeal. 4. The only question that arises in this appeal is as to who is the preferential heir under section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Sub-sections - (1) and (2) of the section, so far as relevant, read— “15. (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; *** *** *** (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),— (a) *** *** *** (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.” 5. In dealing with the question, K the learned Additional District Judge observes: “According to section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, Mst. Chaturia undoubtedly became absolute owner of the suit property; but it has been found that the defendant was not the daughter of Kandhai. According to section 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the property of a Hindu female dying intestate shall devolve upon the heirs of her husband, if she had inherited the property from her husband.” 6. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge can hardly be supported. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act comes into play when a Hindu female dies intestate, without leaving any son or daughter. The learned Judge overlooked the words: “in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased”. The expression “the deceased” in the context means the female Hindu dying intestate. The law is succincly stated in Mulla’s Hindu Law, Fourteenth Edition, page 914. The expression ‘son’ used in Entry (a) has not been defined in the Act. It includes both a natural son and a son adopted in accordance with the law relating to adoption among Hindus in force at the time of the adoption. The law is succincly stated in Mulla’s Hindu Law, Fourteenth Edition, page 914. The expression ‘son’ used in Entry (a) has not been defined in the Act. It includes both a natural son and a son adopted in accordance with the law relating to adoption among Hindus in force at the time of the adoption. In case of a female intestate, who had remarried after the death of the 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 rules relating to a ‘son’, as stated above, apply mutatis mutandis to the case of a daughter: (see Illustrations under Entry (a), p. 917). 7. I am fortified in my view by the decision of T. C. Shrivastava, J. in Keshri v. Harprasad 1970 MPLJ 669 where he states— “This Clause (clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 15) provides for the mode of succession to the property of the female Hindu which she had inherited from her husband and states that the property goes to her husband's heirs. However, it has to be borne in mind that clause (b) operates only ? in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased?. The deceased here obviously refers to the female Hindu. It is true that the words ?notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)? exclude the provision in sub-section (1) in so far as the ? succession of the property inherited by a Hindu female from her husband is concerned. However, the special mode of succession provided in sub-section (2) itself restricts the application of clause (b) to cases where there is no son or daughter. Where a son or daughter exists, the heirs of the husband cannot succeed according to this sub-section and the property must go to the son or daughter.? The learned Judge further states— “The only question is whether the word ‘son’ should be restricted to the ‘son’ of the husband from whom the Hindu female inherited the property or it should include sons of the Hindu female irrespective of whether they are borne of the husband whose property is in dispute or by any other husband. The learned Judge further states— “The only question is whether the word ‘son’ should be restricted to the ‘son’ of the husband from whom the Hindu female inherited the property or it should include sons of the Hindu female irrespective of whether they are borne of the husband whose property is in dispute or by any other husband. It was argued that the Legislature intended to preserve the property to the branch of the person from whom it devolved on the widow and there-fore the word ‘son’ should be restricted to mean a son of the husband whose property is in dispute. I do not see any reason to restrict the interpretation of the word ‘son’ in this manner. From the language used in sub-sections (1) and (2) it is clear that the intention of the Legislature was 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.” Then he concludes: “It is true that the idea of the property of her deceased husband passing to the previous husband’s son is not in consonance with the orthodox Hindu law. But that alone cannot be a ground for interpreting the unambiguous language of section 15 differently. In the scheme of Hindu Succession Act, there are many provisions which are contrary to the orthodox Hindu law. In spite of this, the effect has to be given to them. For instance, it appears to me that section 15 (b) read with the definition of the word ‘related’ in clause (j) of section 3 will enable an illegitimate son of the Hindu female to succeed to the estate of her husband in preference to the husband’s heirs. This would be against the spirit of strict Hindu law, but the intention to bring about this effect seems to be deliberate.” I am in respectful agreement with these observations. 8. In this view, the Courts below were manifestly wrong in holding that the plaintiff, who is the husband’s heir falling under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Act, would take the property of Mst. Ghaturia, the female Hindu dying intestate, to the exclusion of the defendant who is her daughter and, therefore, comes within the ambit of clause (b). 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Ghaturia, the female Hindu dying intestate, to the exclusion of the defendant who is her daughter and, therefore, comes within the ambit of clause (b). 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are reversed and the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed with costs throughout. Counsel’s fee as per schedule or certificate, whichever is less.