Supreme Court Decides on Property Rights of Distant Relatives in Intestate Succession: B.C. Singh vs. J.M. Utarid (2018) INSC 388

Date of the Judgment: May 8, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 388
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J. (authored the judgment)
Can a distant relative inherit property when a closer relative exists? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a property dispute case involving the inheritance rights of a distant relative versus a sister of the deceased. The core issue revolved around interpreting the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to determine the rightful heir to a portion of a property. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a property known as Capel Cottage in Ranikhet, which was purchased jointly by Dr. B.C. Singh and his wife, Dr. Stella Lillian Singh (Dr. S.L. Singh), on February 11, 1952. Dr. S.L. Singh passed away on March 20, 1976, without any children. In 1968, Dr. S.L. Singh became acquainted with J.M. Utarid, who later moved into an annexe of their property in 1969. After some time, Dr. B.C. Singh asked J.M. Utarid to vacate, but he refused. This led to a series of legal battles. Initially, a suit for eviction was dismissed on August 28, 1978, due to lack of proof of tenancy. Subsequently, Dr. B.C. Singh filed another suit in 1980 seeking possession and damages, asserting that J.M. Utarid and his sons were licensees whose license had been terminated. The defendants, J.M. Utarid and his sons, claimed that Dr. S.L. Singh was their relative and that they had a 1/4th share in the property after her death, making them co-owners, not licensees.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed Dr. B.C. Singh’s suit on November 24, 1981. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision on September 3, 1985, ruling in favor of Dr. B.C. Singh. The High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital, however, reversed the First Appellate Court’s decision on August 22, 2005, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, both Dr. B.C. Singh and J.M. Utarid passed away, and their legal representatives were brought on record.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the Indian Succession Act, 1925, specifically focusing on the rules of intestate succession applicable to Indian Christians. The court noted that the Act does not bar a foreign national from inheriting property in India. Key sections of the Act discussed include:

• Section 24: Defines “kindred or consanguinity” as the connection between persons descended from the same ancestor. “Kindred or consanguinity is the connection or relation of persons descended from the same stock or common ancestor.”
• Section 25: Defines “lineal consanguinity” as the relationship between persons in a direct line of descent. “(1) Lineal consanguinity is that which subsists between two persons, one of whom is descended in a direct line from the other, as between a man and his father, grandfather and great-grandfather, and so upwards in the direct ascending line, or between a man and his son, grandson, great-grandson and so downwards in direct descending line.”
• Section 26: Defines “collateral consanguinity” as the relationship between persons descended from the same ancestor but not in a direct line. “(1) Collateral consanguinity is that which subsists between two persons who are descended from the same stock or ancestor, but neither of whom is descended in a direct line from the other.”
• Section 32: States that the property of an intestate devolves upon the spouse or kindred of the deceased.
• Section 33(b): Specifies that if an intestate leaves no lineal descendant but has kindred, half of the property goes to the widow/widower and the other half to the kindred. “if he has left no lineal descendant, but has left persons who are of kindred to him, one-half of his property shall belong to his widow, and the other half shall go to those who are kindred to him, in the order and according to the rules hereinafter contained;”
• Section 35: Grants a husband the same rights as a widow in respect of his deceased wife’s property.
• Section 47: Dictates that if there are no lineal descendants, parents, the property is divided equally between brothers and sisters. “Where the intestate has left neither lineal descendant, nor father, nor mother, the property shall be divided equally between his brothers and sisters and the child or children of such of them as may have died before him, such children (if more than one) taking in equal shares only the shares which their respective parents would have taken if living at the intestate’s death.”
• Section 48: Specifies that if there are no lineal descendants, parents, brothers, or sisters, the property is divided among the nearest kindred. “Where the intestate has left neither lineal descendant, nor parent, nor brother, nor sister, his property shall be divided equally among those of his relatives who are in the nearest degree of kindred to him.”

Arguments

Appellants’ (Dr. B.C. Singh’s LRs) Arguments:

• J.M. Utarid and his children were not co-owners but licensees whose license had been terminated.
• Even if the defendants were related to Dr. S.L. Singh, they could not inherit because Ida Utarid, Dr. S.L. Singh’s sister, was alive and was the preferential heir.
• Ida Utarid’s foreign nationality did not disqualify her from inheriting.

Respondents’ (J.M. Utarid’s LRs) Arguments:

• Ida Utarid, being a Pakistani national, could not inherit Dr. S.L. Singh’s property.
• As kindred of Dr. S.L. Singh, the defendants were entitled to a 1/4th share in the property, making them co-owners.
• They were not licensees, and therefore, could not be evicted.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether J.M. Utarid and his children were co-owners of the property or merely licensees.
2. Whether Ida Utarid, being a foreign national, was entitled to inherit the property of her deceased sister, Dr. S.L. Singh.
3. Whether J.M. Utarid, as a distant relative, could inherit when a closer relative (sister) was alive.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Indian Succession Act, 1925
  • Section 24: Defines kindred or consanguinity.
  • Section 25: Defines lineal consanguinity.
  • Section 26: Defines collateral consanguinity.
  • Section 32: States that the property of an intestate devolves upon the spouse or kindred of the deceased.
  • Section 33(b): Specifies the distribution of property when an intestate has a spouse and kindred.
  • Section 35: Grants a husband the same rights as a widow in respect of his deceased wife’s property.
  • Section 47: Dictates the distribution of property when the intestate has no lineal descendants, parents but has siblings.
  • Section 48: Dictates the distribution of property when the intestate has no lineal descendants, parents or siblings.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to determine the rightful heir. The court interpreted sections 24, 25, 26, 32, 33(b), 35, 47 and 48 to arrive at the conclusion that the sister of the deceased was the preferential heir.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principles of intestate succession as outlined in the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court emphasized that when an individual dies without a will, the law provides a clear hierarchy for determining heirs. The court prioritized the rights of closer relatives over distant ones, ensuring that the deceased’s property devolves in an orderly and equitable manner. The court also clarified that foreign nationality does not disqualify a person from inheriting property in India under the Act.

Logical Reasoning

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• Dr. B.C. Singh, as the husband, was entitled to half of Dr. S.L. Singh’s share in the property, as per Section 33(b) read with Section 35 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• The remaining 1/4th share would devolve upon the nearest kindred, which was Dr. S.L. Singh’s sister, Ida Utarid, as per Section 47 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• The court emphasized that under the scheme of the Act, nearer kindred excludes distant kindred. The first defendant being a distant kindred was not entitled to succeed any share in the property when a nearer kindred was alive.
• The court rejected the argument that Ida Utarid, being a Pakistani national, was barred from inheriting, clarifying that the Act does not contain such a prohibition.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “Kindred or consanguinity is the connection or relation of persons descended from the same stock or common ancestor.”
• “if he has left no lineal descendant, but has left persons who are of kindred to him, one-half of his property shall belong to his widow, and the other half shall go to those who are kindred to him, in the order and according to the rules hereinafter contained;”
• “Where the intestate has left neither lineal descendant, nor father, nor mother, the property shall be divided equally between his brothers and sisters and the child or children of such of them as may have died before him, such children (if more than one) taking in equal shares only the shares which their respective parents would have taken if living at the intestate’s death.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Indian Succession Act, 1925, governs the distribution of property when a person dies without a will, particularly for Indian Christians.
• Closer relatives have priority over distant relatives in intestate succession.
• Foreign nationals are not barred from inheriting property in India under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• The husband of the deceased is entitled to half of the deceased’s share in the property, with the remaining half going to the nearest kindred.
• This judgment clarifies the order of preference in intestate succession, ensuring that property devolves to the closest relatives first.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court. There were no specific directions given other than the order to restore the judgment of the First Appellate Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in intestate succession under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, closer relatives have priority over distant relatives and that foreign nationals are not barred from inheriting property in India. This judgment reinforces the established principles of intestate succession and clarifies the rights of different categories of heirs.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in B.C. Singh vs. J.M. Utarid clarifies the rules of intestate succession under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, emphasizing the priority of closer relatives and the absence of any bar on foreign nationals from inheriting property in India. The court held that the sister of the deceased was the preferential heir over a distant relative, thus settling the dispute in favor of the appellants.