Supreme Court clarifies inheritance rights of a widow in joint family property: Sachidhanandam vs. E. Vanaja (2023) INSC 984 (6 November 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 6 November 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 984
Judges: B.R. Gavai, Hima Kohli, Prashant Kumar Mishra

When a woman’s husband dies, what are her inheritance rights in her in-laws’ property? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the partition of joint family property. The court clarified that a widow does not have a primary right to inherit her mother-in-law’s share of the property if the mother-in-law dies without a will. This judgment clarifies the application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in such scenarios. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Hima Kohli, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, with Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the partition of properties within a family. The plaintiff, E. Vanaja, is the widow of Elango, who was the son of Nallathambi Chettiar. The defendants are the other family members, including the widow, sons, daughters, and grandsons of Nallathambi Chettiar. E. Vanaja filed a suit seeking a share in the family properties, claiming that they were joint family properties. She initially sought a 1/8th share, but the dispute evolved through various court proceedings.

The plaintiff, E. Vanaja, claimed that the ‘B’ schedule properties were self-acquired by Nallathambi Chettiar, the ‘C’ schedule properties were bought by defendants 1 to 4 using income from ‘B’ schedule properties, and the ‘C1’ schedule properties were also joint family properties. She sought a 1/8th share in all these properties, along with mesne profits (profits from the property).

The defendants acknowledged the family relationship but argued that E. Vanaja could only claim a share through her deceased husband’s share in the joint family properties. They contended that upon Elango’s death, his 1/8th share was equally divided between his wife (E. Vanaja) and his mother (Elango’s mother), who later died during the suit. Thus, the defendants argued that E. Vanaja was only entitled to a 1/16th share in the ‘B’ schedule properties. They also claimed that most of the ‘C’ schedule properties were not joint family properties.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, E. Vanaja, granting her a 1/8th share in the properties. The court found that the properties were joint family properties and that the defendants failed to prove the validity of a will dated 01.02.2000. However, the First Appellate Court modified this decision, granting E. Vanaja a 1/16th share in the ‘B’ and ‘C1’ schedule properties, and denying her share in ‘C’ schedule properties. The High Court, in a second appeal, further modified the decree, holding that E. Vanaja was entitled to a 1/7th share out of her husband’s 1/8th share and her mother-in-law’s 1/16th share in the ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘C1’ schedule properties. The High Court also concluded that all the properties were joint family properties.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically Sections 15 and 16, to determine the inheritance rights of a female Hindu. Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, states that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate (without a will) shall devolve firstly upon her sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and her husband. Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, lays down the order of succession and manner of distribution among the heirs of a female Hindu. Rule 1 of Section 16 specifies that among the heirs mentioned in Section 15(1), those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Rule 3 of Section 16 specifies that 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.

The relevant sections are reproduced below:

“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, — (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 mother and father; (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.”

“16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu .—The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestates 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 included 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’s 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.”

Arguments

Plaintiff’s (E. Vanaja) Arguments:

• E. Vanaja claimed a 1/8th share in the joint family properties, asserting that all the properties mentioned in schedules ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘C1’ were joint family assets.
• She argued that the ‘C’ schedule properties were purchased using income from the ‘B’ schedule properties, thus making them joint family properties.
• She contended that she was entitled to a share in her deceased husband’s share of the joint family property, and also a share in her mother-in-law’s share.

Defendants’ Arguments:

• The defendants admitted the family relationship but argued that E. Vanaja could only claim a share through her deceased husband’s share in the joint family properties.
• They stated that upon the death of E. Vanaja’s husband, his 1/8th share was equally divided between E. Vanaja and her mother-in-law.
• They contended that E. Vanaja was only entitled to a 1/16th share in the ‘B’ schedule properties.
• They argued that most of the ‘C’ schedule properties were not joint family properties.

The defendants relied on the fact that the mother-in-law had died and the property was jointly owned by the mother-in-law and the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to a share in the property of the mother-in-law as well.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue revolved around the interpretation of Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically:

• Whether a widow has a primary right to inherit her mother-in-law’s share of joint family property when the mother-in-law dies intestate.

The sub-issue was regarding the share of the plaintiff in the mother-in-law’s share.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to determine the order of succession for a female Hindu dying intestate.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to determine that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves firstly upon her sons and daughters and husband and not the daughter-in-law.
• The Court relied on Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to determine the order of succession and distribution of property among the heirs of a female Hindu.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by a strict interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court emphasized that the law clearly specifies the order of succession for a female Hindu dying intestate, and a daughter-in-law does not have a primary right to inherit her mother-in-law’s property in the presence of other heirs like sons and daughters.

The Court focused on the following:

• Statutory Interpretation: The Court’s primary focus was on the literal interpretation of Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• Order of Succession: The Court strictly adhered to the order of succession outlined in the Act, emphasizing that the daughter-in-law is not a primary heir in the first category.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the plain language of the statute. It did not delve into broader social or equitable considerations but rather focused on the legal provisions.

The court observed, “A combined reading of Section 15(1)(a) and Section 16 of the Act would make it manifest that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve, firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre -deceased son or daughter) and the husband. Therefore, the plaintiff being the widow of the pre-deceased son does not have the first right or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother -in-law.”

The Court also stated, “The impugned judgment rendered by the High Court shall stand modified only to the extent that the plaintiff -respondent no. 1 is not entitled to 1/16th share in the share of her mother -in-law in the suit properties.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• A widow does not have a primary right to inherit her mother-in-law’s share of joint family property when the mother-in-law dies without a will.
• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifies that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves first to her sons, daughters, and husband.
• This judgment clarifies the order of succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, for female Hindus.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment, stating that the plaintiff is not entitled to a 1/16th share in the share of her mother-in-law in the suit properties. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court was affirmed subject to this modification.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a widow does not have a primary right to inherit her mother-in-law’s share of joint family property when the mother-in-law dies intestate. This clarifies the order of succession for female Hindus under the Act and confirms that a daughter-in-law is not a primary heir in the first category.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sachidhanandam vs. E. Vanaja clarifies the inheritance rights of a widow in her mother-in-law’s share of joint family property. The Court held that a widow does not have a primary right to inherit her mother-in-law’s share when the mother-in-law dies without a will. This decision is based on a strict interpretation of Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, emphasizing the order of succession for female Hindus. The ruling modifies the High Court’s judgment and provides clarity on the application of the Hindu Succession Act in such scenarios.