Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1596 (JHR)

Mohan Lal Jhalani v. Rajesh Kumar Rai

2009-12-16

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2009
Order This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 2.9.2008 passed in Title Suit No. 36 of 2005 by the learned Munsif 1st at Dhanbad, in which he has allowed the petition of the husband and daughter under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substituting their names in place of plaintiff no. 1, Smt. Somaraiya Devi. 2. In substance, the brief facts of the case are that Smt. Somaraiya Devi and other plaintiffs filed a suit before the learned Munsif seeking declaration of the title of the property. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff no. 1 Smt. Somaraiya Devi died, leaving behind her husband, married daughter and son. The son of plaintiff no. 1, Smt. Somaraiya Devi, was already on record as plaintiff no. 2. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 made an application as married daughter of plaintiff no. 1 and the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 (deceased) for their substitution in place of plaintiff no. 1. 3. Defendant-petitioner objected the said' application and took the plea that Smt. Somaraiya Devi (deceased) has specifically stated in her plaint that her husband Satya Narain Rai has not contributed any purchase money in purchase of the said property and, as such, she has claimed the said property as her Stridhan. It was further objected that husband of Smt. Somaraiya Devi cannot inherit the land in dispute in view of the provisions contained under Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants, however, did not object for the substitution of the married daughter of the deceased. 4. After hearing the parties, learned trial court found that the applicant's husband as well as married daughter of the deceased Smt. Somaraiya Devi plaintiff no. 1 are legal heirs of the deceased and the application was allowed and substitution was also allowed. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application is preferred in this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that the plaintiff no. 1 deceased, Smt. Somaraiya Devi, had purchased the property from Smt. Durga Devi, Man Singh, Parbati Devi and Ganga Devi, all heirs and legal representatives of late Banarshi Lal, about 7 Kathas and 64 square feet of Holding Nos. 243, 244, 245 and 246 by registered sale deed no. 8724 dated 16.7.1988. 1 deceased, Smt. Somaraiya Devi, had purchased the property from Smt. Durga Devi, Man Singh, Parbati Devi and Ganga Devi, all heirs and legal representatives of late Banarshi Lal, about 7 Kathas and 64 square feet of Holding Nos. 243, 244, 245 and 246 by registered sale deed no. 8724 dated 16.7.1988. "He further stated that the deceased Smt. Somaraiya Devi has categorically stated, as indicated in the judgment, that the husband of the respondent no. 3 did not contribute any money for the said purchase and, as such, the husband cannot claim to be the legal heir of the deceased Smt. Somaraiya Devi in view of the provisions contained under Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act". Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides as under: "15. 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, ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (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) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………” 6. The above quoted provisions of the Hindu Succession Act clearly emphasize that the property must be inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother. The perusal of Section makes it obligatory that the lady must have received the property through inheritance. It is not indicated in the said provision that if the property is purchased by herself, as in the case of Smt. Sundari Devi, whether the said property would also cover the provision of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. It is not disputed that the said property has been purchased by the deceased Smt. "Somaraiya Devi plaintiff no. 1 as admitted in para-5 of the petition. It was contended that her husband had not contributed any money in the said purchase. If it would have been inherited by Smt. Sundari Devi from her parents, the said property should have devolved, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. 1 as admitted in para-5 of the petition. It was contended that her husband had not contributed any money in the said purchase. If it would have been inherited by Smt. Sundari Devi from her parents, the said property should have devolved, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. Thus, the provisions of Section 15(2)(a) is not applicable in this case. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the husband is also the legal heir for the purpose of the substitution in the suit. I do not find any error in the order of the trial Court. 7. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.