http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: BHAJYA S/O SHYAMA KANBI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOPIKABAI AND ANR.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/04/1978

BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH UNTWALIA, N.L. KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  793            1978 SCR  (3) 561  1978 SCC  (2) 542  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1989 SC 222  (3)  RF         1989 SC 516  (49)  RF         1991 SC2301  (8)

ACT: Madhya  Pradesh Land Revenue Code, (Code 11 of  1955),  1954 Section  151 r/w S. 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act  (Act  30), 1956-Interpretation  of the words ’subject to  his  personal law’ in Section 151, which provides "subject to his personal law,  the interest of a tenure holder shall, on  his  death, pass by inheritance, survivorship or bequest as the case may be"-Whether   referable  to  Hindu  Succession  Act,   1956- Legislation by referential incorporation Categories of  such legislation-"Personal  law"  includes Hindu  Succession  Act Hindu Success-ion Act, 1956, Sections 8, 15 & 16.

HEADNOTE: The suit land which originally belonged to Ghusya, who  died before  the Settlement of 1918, came into the possession  of his  son  Punjya.   On Punjya death in the  year  1936,  the holding  devolved on his widow Smt.  Sarji who continued  in possession of the same till her death on 6-11-1956.  On  the death  of  Sariji  the  defendants  entered  into   wrongful possession of the land.  Smt.Gopikabai, claiming inheritance to  the Bhumidari         interest of Smt.  Sarij  deceased, as  the  daughter  of the sister of the  last  male  holder. Punjya, filed a suit for prossetion        of the suit  land and  also  for  the  value  of  the  crop.   The  defendants contested  the suit claiming that they were Sapindas of  the last male holder, Punjya (being his father’s brother’s son’s son), and as such were under the Hindu Law as prevailing  on the  date  of  Punjya’s death, entitled to  succeed  to  the interest of the deceased tenure holder by virtue of  section 151  of  the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1954, the  operation  of which  had  been  saved  by  Section  4  (2)  of  the  Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The  Trial  Court  decreed  the  suit;  but  on  appeal  the Additional District Judge set aside the decree of the  trial Court  and  dismissed the suit.  The High Court,  in  Second Appeal,  restored the trial Court’s decree holding that  the plaintiff  came under Clause (b) of Section 8 of  the  Hindu

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Succession  Act,  and as such, was entitled  to  succeed  in preference  to  the  defendants who  are  agnatic  relatives coming under clause (c) of that Section. Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court HELD : (1) From the conspectus of Ss. 2(7), 2(19), 2(20) and Ss.  145,  147, 148, 151, 168, 172 of  Madhya  Pradesh  Land Revenue Code, 1954, the following points emerge clear :  (i) A  ’tenure-holder’ and a ’tenant’ have been  separately  and distinctly  defined in clauses (20) and (19) of s. 2 of  the 1954  Code.  A ’tenant’ according to the  definition,  holds land  from a tenure-holder, but a  ’tenure-holder  holds-and directly from the State. (ii) A bhumiswami/ Bhumidhari  pays land revenue to the State and not rent; (iii) Tenancy rights and  rights  of  Bhumiswami/Bhumidhari  are  dealt  with  in separate Chapters of the Code.  Bhumiswami/Bhumidharies have permanent  heritable  and transferable rights  in  the  land which cannot be taken away, except in certain cases.                                     [565 G, 566 E-F] (2) Even on the assumption, that S. 151 of the 1954 Code  is a  law  for  evolution of  tenancy  rights  in  agricultural holdings,  the section itself, in terms, makes personal  law by  general  reference  applicable  in  the  matter  of  the devolution  of the interest of a  deceased  tenure  holder (i.e. Bhumiswami and Bhumidhar). Smt.   Indubai v. Vyankati Vithoba Sawadhu and Ors..  A.I.R. 1966  Bom. 64 Kumari Ramlali v. Mst.  Bhagunti Hat and  Ors. A.I.R.  1968, M.P. 247 and Nahar Nirasingh and Ors. v.  Mst. Dukalhim & Ors., A.I.R. 1974 M.P. 141 referred to. (3)  (a) There are no words in section 151 or  elsewhere  in the Code which. limit the scope of the expression  "personal law"  to  that  prevailing on February’  5,  1955.   On  the contrary  the  words "on his death" used in s.  151  clearly show’ 562 that  the  legislative  intent was that  "personal  law"  as amended upto the date on which the devolution of the  tenure holders  interest is to be determined, shall to the rule  of decision. [567 H, 568 A] (b)   The  Legislature  can  legislate  on  a   subject   by referential    incorporation,    if    that    subject    is constitutionally within its legislative competence.  Section 151  is  an instance  of legislation by  such  method.   The State  Legislature enacted the 1954 Code in exercise of  its power  under Entry V in the Concurrent List.  The 1954  Code had  also  received the assent of the President  under  Art. 254(2) of the Constitution. [567 E-G] (c)    Broadly   speaking   legislation    by    referential incorporation  falls  in  two categories :  First,  where  a statute by specific reference incorporates the provisions of another  statute as of the time of adoption.Second  where  a statute incorporates by general reference the law concerning a  particular  subject,  as a genus.  In  the  case  of  the former,the  subsequent  amendments  made  in  the   referred statute  cannot  automatically  be read  into  the  adopting statute.  In the case of latter category,it may be  presumed that   the  legislative  intent  was  to  include  all   the subsequent  amendments also, made from time to time  in  the generic  law  on the subject adopted by  general  reference. [568 B-C] (b) Constructed in accordance with the above principle,  the expression "personal law" referred to in Section 151 of  the Code,  comprehends  the Hindu Succession  Act,  1956,  which will  undoubtedly govern the inheritance to the ,estate’  of Smt.   Sarji  who died on November 6, 1956, much  after  the coming into force of that Act.  F568F-G]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Smt.   Indubai v. Vyankati Vithaba Sawadha and Ors.,  A.1.R. 1966 Bom. 64, Kumari Ramlali v. Mst.  Bhagunti Bai and Ors., A.I.R.  1968 M.P. 247 and Nahar Hirasingh and Ors.  v.  Mst. Dukalhin and Ors.. A.I.R. 1974 M.P. 141; approved. (4)  Reading Section 15 with rule 3, set out in s.  16,  the instant  case  will fall under Cl. (b) Sub-s. (2) of  s.  15 because  Shrimati Sarji died issueless and  intestate.   The interest in the suit property was inherited by her from  her husband.  The suit land will, therefore, under Cl.(b) go  to the heirs of her husband, Punjya. [569 G-H] (5)The expression "heirs" of the husband used in S. 15 is to be  construed  with  reference  to the  date  on  which  the succession  opens out and not with reference to the date  of the  husband’s death.  Once it is found that the case  falls under  s. 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, the  fiction envisaged in Rule 3 of Section 16 is attracted, according to which,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  order   of devolution  it  is to be deemed as if the husband  had  died intestate  immediately after the female  intestate’s  death. [569 A, E, 570 B] (6)  Section  8 of the Act provides that the property  of  a male  Hindu dying. intestate shall devolve according to  the provisions of this chapter :-               (a)   Firstly.  upon  the  heirs,  being   the               relatives   specified  ill  Class  1  of   the               Schedule;               (b) Secondly, if there is no heir of Class  1,               then  upon  the  heirs,  being  the  relatives               specified in Class 11 of the Schedule;               (c) Thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the               two  classes  then  upon the  agnates  of  the               deceased and,               Lastly,  if there is no agnate, then upon  the               cognates of the               deceased." Now,  Smt.   Gopikabai, Respondent No.1  is  admittedly  the daughter  of  the sister of the last  male  holder,  Punjya; whereas  the,  appellants are his remote  agnates.   Neither party  falls  under  Class 1  of  the  Schedule.   ’Sister’s daughter’ is Item 4 of Entry V in Class II of the  Schedule; while  agnates do not figure anywhere in Class  III.   Thus, Smt.  Gopikabai’s case will come in Clause (b); Secondly, of S.  8 and, as such, she will be a preferential heir  of  the husband of Smt.  Sarji, if he had died the moment after  her death on November 6, 1956.  In this view. she would  exclude the defendants from inheritance even 563 according to ’personal law’ which, within the  contemplation of  s.  151 of the Code, will include the  Hindu  Succession Act,  1956,  in force at the time when Smt  Sarji  died  and succession opened out. [570 C-F]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2415  of 1968. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree  dated 10-7-68  of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in  Second  Appeal No. 3773 of 1962. Y.  K. Sanghi, A. G. Ratnaparkhi and G. L. Sanghi,  for  the Appellant. U. R. Lalit, Y. N. Ganpule and Yeena Devi (Mrs.) Khanna, for the Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

SARKARIA   J.-This appealing directed against a judgment  of the,High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The following is the genealogy of the parties                           Dewaji -----------------------------------------------------------         Jiwaji                Dhondya               Ghusya                                                 (wife Jhuli)           Shioba               Shyam  -----------------                                         Punjya         Turji                                  (last Male  (Wd/o Janaji)                                     Holder          Sonu                  Bhajya      (Deft. No. 2)         (Deft No. 1) =Smt. Sarji                                                 Gopikabai                                        (Wife of Mukundrao                                        Pltff.-respdt. 1) Smt.   Gopikabai  wife  of Mukundrao,  shown  in  the  above pedigree-table,  filed a suit in the Court  of  the  Civil Judge, Multai, against the defendant-appellant, Bhajya, and Sonu,  respondent 2, for possession of Bhumiswami rights  in the  land comprised in Khasra Nos.31 and 166 in the area  of Village  Kuthkhedi,  Tehsil Multai, District  Betul,  Madhya Pradesh. The  suit land originally belonged to Ghusya son of  Dewaji. Ghusya  died before the Settlement of 1918  and  thereafter, this land was held by his son, Punjya, who died in the  year 1936.  On Punjya’s ,death, the holding devolved on  Punjya’s widow, Smt.  Sarji Smt.  Sarji died on November 6, 1956, and thereupon  this  dispute about the inheritance to  the  land left  behind  by  Smt.   Sarji,  has arisen  between the parties.  Both the parties claim on the basis of Hindu Law. The  plaintiff-respondent, Smt.  Gopikabai, claims that  she being the daughter of Smt.  Turji, a sister of the last male holder,  Punjya,  is  an heir under  Section  15  read  with Section  2  (II)  (4) (iv) of the Schedule  referred  to  in Section  8  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,  whereas  the defendants  claim as sapindas of the last male holder  under Mitakshra Law. It  is  alleged  by  the plaintiff  that  Bhajya  and  Sonu, defendants, took forcible possession of the suit land  after the death of Smt.  Sarji. 564 Apart  from possession, the Plaintiff claimed Rs.  180/-  as damages for the crop removed by the defendants. The defendants’ case, as laid in the, written statement, was that  the suit property being an agricultural holding  ,  in view  of  Section  4(2) of the  Hindu  Succession  Act,  the inheritance  to  the  estate  of Smt.   Sarji  who  died  on November 6, 1956, will not be governed by the provisions  of that Act, but by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law, according to which  the  defendants  are entitled to  suit  land  to  the exclusion  of the last male holder’s sister’s daughter,  the plaintiff. The trial court decreed Smt.  Gopikabai’s claim.  On appeal, the  Additional District Judge set aside the decree  of  the trial court and dismissed the respondent’s suit. In second appeal by the plaintiff, the High Court  following its  earlier decision in Kumari  Ramlali v.  Mst.   Bhagunti Bai(1)   held "that Bhumiswami and Bhumidhari rights are not tenancy  rights and Section 151 of the Madhya  Pradesh  Land Revenue  Code,  1954,  which deals with  the  devolution  of interest  of  a Bhumiswami or  a  Bhumidhari  tenure-holder, cannot   be  regarded  as  a  provision  dealing  with   the devolution  of  tenancy rights.  Section 4(2) of  the  Hindu Succession  Act,  1956, in no way saves Section 151  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and it cannot be held  that Section  14 of the Hindu Succession Act does not affect  the personal  law  according  to which  the  devolution  of  the interest of a tenure-holder passes under Section 151 of  the Code."  The  High  Court further held  that  the  expression "heirs  of  the husband" in Section 15(1) (b),  as  also  in Section  15  (2) (b), refers to the heirs  of  the  deceased husband,  who would have succeeded under the  provisions  of the  Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if the husband had died  on the  date on which the female intestate actually  died.   On these premises, the High Court held that the plaintiff, Smt. Gopikabai,  falls  within clause (b) of Section 8,  and,  as such, is entitled to succeed in preference to the defendant- agnates  coming  under clause (c) of that Section.   In  the result, the plaintiff’s appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was restored. Hence, this appeal by special leave. The  contentions canvassed before us by Mr. Sanghi,  learned counsel for the appellants, are as under (i)  Section  151 of the Madhya Pradesh Land  Revenue  Code, 1954  (in short, the Code) was a law for the  devolution  of tenancy  rights in agricultural holdings, because under  the scheme of the Code, Bbumiswamis and Bhumidaris were  tenure- holders who could be included in the term "tenants".  [Nahar Hari  Singh v. Dukallun(2) and Sitabai v.  Kothulal(2)  were cited]. (ii) In view of the position stated at no. (i), Section 4(2) of  the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (for short  called  ’the Act) saved (1) L.P.A. 6 of 1965 decided on April 20,1968. (2)  A.I.R. 1974 M.P. 141 (F.B.). (3)  A.I.R. 1959 Bom. 78. 565 Section  151  of  the Code.  Therefore,  devolution  of  the agricultural  holding  left behind by the  deceased  tenure- holder 9 will be governed by Section 151 of the Code and not by anything provided in the Act. (iii)  The expression ’Personal Law’ in Section 151  of  the Code  means  the  Hindu law which was in  force  before  the enactment of the Act, when the Code was enacted on  February 5,  1955, because the words "any law for the time  being  in force" in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act cannot  be construed   to   mean  any  law  which   came   into   force subsequently. (iv)  In  view of no. (iii), under Mitakshra Law  (Sans  the Act) the respondent being the daughter of the sister of  the last  male-holder, will be excluded from succession  by  the appellants,  who are agnates of the husband of Smt.   Sarji, deceased. (v)  Even if the Act applies, the expression "heirs  of  the husband"  in Section 15, means heirs in accordance with  the general  Hindu law in force when the husband died,  and  not the  heirs  ascertained  under  Section  8  by   fictionally postponing  Punjya’s death of 6th November, 1956, when  Smt. Sarji died (Kampiqh v. Girigamme(1) relied upon). As against this, Mr. Lalit submits that- (a)  Section  151  of the Code is not  a  law  dealing  with devolution  of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings  and, as such,is not covered by the saving clause in Section  4(2) of  the Act.  Section 151 is confined to the  devolution  of the  interest  of a ’tenure-holder’, the  concept  of  which under the scheme of the Code, is different and distinct from a  ’tenant.   Chapter XI of the Code deals  with  ’tenants’, while  Chapter  XII (in which Section 151 is  placed)  deals with ’tenure-hold%-.--.’.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

(b)  Even  if a ’tenure-holder’ includes  a  ’tenant’,  then also,  Section  151  of  the Code  by  reference  makes  the devolution  of  the  interest of a  deceased  tenure  holder "subject  to his personal law" as on his death.  Since  Smt. Sarji  died on November. 6, 1956, the ’personal  law’  which will govern the inheritance to her estate, is Hindu law,  as modified by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Under Section 15 read  with  Section 8 of the Act, Respondent  no.1  being  a preferential   heir,  will  exclude  the   appellants   from inheritance to the estate of Smt.  Sarji. Before dealing with these contentions, it will be profitable to  have  a look at the relevant provisions  of  the  Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954. "a  Section 2 (7) of the Code defined a ’Holding’  to  mean, inter  alia,  a parcel of land separately assessed  to  land revenue".   Section  2(20)  defined  a  ’Tenure-holder’as"’a person   holding  land  from  the  State  Government  as   a Bhumiswami  or  a  Bhumidhari".   Section  2(19)  defined  a ’Tenant’  as "a person holding land from a tenure-holder  as an ordinary or an occupancy tenant under Chapter XIV’. Chapter  XII  dealt with tenure-holders.  In  that  Chapter, Section  145  provided that there shall be  two  classes  of tenure-holders of (1) A.I.R. 1966 Mysore 189. 566 lands  held from the State, namely, (i) Bhumiswami and  (ii) Bhumidhari.  Sections 146 and 147 indicated the persons who could be descr ibed as Bhumiswamis and Bhumidharis.  Section 148  provided  that every person becoming  a  Bhumiswami  or Bhumidhari, shall pay as land revenue-               (a)  if he was paying land revenue in  respect               of the lands held by him-such land revenue,               (b)  if he was paying rent in respect  of  the               land held by him-an amount equal to such rent. It  may  be  noted  that Chapter XII  of  the  Code  further contains provisions for transfer of Bhumiswami or Bhumidhari rights and partition of Bhumiswami  and Bhumidhari  holdings when there are more than one, tenure holder.  Tenancy rights are  not  dealt  with in this  Chapter,  but  separately  in Chapter  XIV Sections 168 and 172 in Chapter XIV  deal  with the  devolution  of  rights of an  ordinary  tenant  and  an occupancy tenant.  Those rights also pass on the death of  a tenant in accordance with the personal law of the deceased.               Section 151, which is in Chapter XII, runs               thus :               "Subject to his personal law, the interest  of               a  tenure  holder shall on his death  pass  by               inheritance,  survivorship or bequest, as  the               case may be."               From  the  above  conspectus,  the   following               points emerge clear: (i) A ’tenure-holder and a ’tenant’ have been separately and distinctly defined in clauses (20) and (19) of Section 2  of the  1954  Code.  A ’tenant’ according  to  the  definition, holds land from a tenure-holder, but a ’tenure-holder’ holds land directly from the State. (ii) A Bhumiswami/Bhumidhari pays land revenue to the  State and not rent. (iii)Tenancy rights and rights of Bhumiswami/Bhumidhari  are dealt    with   in   separate   Chapters   of   the    Code. Bhumiswamis/Bhumidharies   have  permanent  heritable and transferable rights in the land which cannot be taken  away, except in certain cases. There  is  a  conflict of judicial  opinion  as  to  whether Chapter  XII in general and Section 151 in particular, is  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

law  "for  the devolution of tenancy rights  in  respect  of agricultural  holdings" within the saving clause in  Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A  Division  Bench of the Bombay High Court (at  Nagpur)  in Smt.   Indubai v. Vyankati Vithoba Sawadha &  Ors.(1),  held that the aforesaid provisions in the 1954 Code ate not  such a  law  and the exception made in section 4(2) of  the  Act, cannot apply to them. In  view  of  the distinctive features of the  rights  of  a tenure-holder,  a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh  High Court,  also,  in  Kumari Ramlali v. Mst.   Bhagunti  Bai  & Ors.(2),  took the same view, and held that Section  151  of the Code, which deals with devolution of (1)  A.I.R. 1966 Bom. 64. (2)  A.I.R. 1968 M. P. 247. 567 the interest of a Bhumiswami or Bhumidhari tenure-holder, is not  a provision dealing with devolution of tenancy  rights’ within the contemplation of Section 4(2) of the Act. A  Full  Bench  of the Madhya Pradesh High  Court  in  Nahar Hirasingh & Ors. v. Mst.  Dukalhin & Ors.(1), by a  majority of  two against one, however, over-ruled on this point,  the decision  in  Kumari Ramlali v. Mst.   Bhagunti  (ibid)  and dissented from the Bombay view.  But the Full Bench was  not concerned with the interpretation of section 151 of the 1954 Code.   The  provision, the interpretation of which  was  in question  before,  the  Full as Section 164  of  the  Madhya Pradesh  Land  Revenue  Code 1959 as  it  stood  before  its amendment in 1961.  Whereas Section 151 of the 1954 Code, in terms, provided that personal law would be applicable in the matter  of do devolution of the interest of a tenure  holder (i.e.  Bhumiswami and Bhumidhari), Section 164 of the,  Code of 1959 (which had repealed and replaced the Code of  1954), as it stood at the material time, commenced not only with  a non-obstante  clause militating against the  application  of personal  law, but also provided its own list of  heirs  and order of succession, which was different from that laid down in the,   Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Be  that  as it may, for the purpose of  deciding  the  case before  us, it is not necessary to pronounce one way or  the other, on the question whether Section 151 of the 1954  Code is  a law for devolution of tenancy rights  in  agricultural holdings,  because even on the assumption that it is such  a law,  Section 151 of the 1954 Code, itself, in terms,  makes personal law applicable in the matter of. the devolution  of the  interest of a deceased tenure holder.  Well then,  does the  expression "personal law" mentioned in Section 151,  in the  case of Hindus, means is contended by Mr.  Sanghi-Hindu law as obtaining on February 5, 1955 when the 1954 Code came into  force?  Or, does it mean Hindu law, as amended by  the Hindu  Succession Act, prevailing on November 6, 1956,  when Smt.  Sarji died ? It  is  well  known that a Legislature can  legislate  on  a subject  by  referential incorporation, if that  subject  is constitutionally within its legislative competence.  Section 151 is an instance of legislation by such method.  The State Legislature’ enacted the 1954 Code in exercise of its  power under Entry 5, in the Concurrent List (i.e. List III), which reads as under               "5. Marriage and divorce; infants and  minors;               adoption;  wills,  intestacy  and  succession;               Joint  family  and partition; all  matters  in               respect   of   which   parties   in   Judicial               proceedings  were immediately before  the  co-               mmencement  of  ibis Constitution  subject  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             their personal’ law." The 1954 Code had also received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The  questions posed above turn on an interpretation of  the language of &Won 151.  ’Mere are no words in that Section or elsewhere (1)  A.I.R. 1974 M.P. 141 568 on  the  Code,  which  limit the  scope  of  the  expression "personal  law" to that prevailing on February 5, 1955.   On the contrary, the words " on his death" used in Section 151, clearly show that the legislative intent was that  ’personal law’ as amended upto the date on which the revolution of the tenure  holder’s interest is to be determined, shall be  the rule of decision. Broadly  speaking, legislation by referential  incorporation falls in two categories : First, where a statute by specific reference incorporates the provisions of another statute  as of   the  time  of  adoption.   Second,  where   a   statute incorporates  by  general  reference the  law  concerning  a particular  subject, as a genus.  In the case of the  former the  subsequent amendments made in the referred statute  can not automatically be read into the adopting statute.  In the case  of  latter  category,  it may  be  presumed  that  the legislative  intent  was  to  include  all  the   subsequent amendments  also, made from time to time in the generic  law on  the subject adopted by general reference.This  principle of construction of a referred statute has been neatly summed up by Sutherland, thus               "  A  statute  which refers to the  law  of  a               subject  generally  adopts  the  law  on   the               subject  as  of the time the law  is  invoked.               This  will  include  all  the  amendments               and modifications of the law subsequent to the               time the reference statute was enacted."               (Vide,  Sutherland’s  Statutory  Construction,               Third Edition, Article 5208, page 5208). Corpus Juris Secundum also enunciates the same principle  in these terms               ".....Where  the  reference  in  an   adopting               statute is to the law generally which  governs               the   particular  subject,  and  not  to   any               specific statute or part thereof, . . . ...the               reference will be held to include the law  as.               it  stands  at  the time it is  sought  to  be               applied,  with all the changes made from  time               to  time, at least as far as the  changes  are               consistent  with the purpose of  the  adopting               statute." Constructed  in  accordance with the  above  principle,  the expression  law"  referred to in Section 151  of  the  Code, comprehends  the  Hindu  Succession  Act  1956,  which  will undoubtedly  govern the inheritance to the ’estate  of  Smt. Sarji  who died on November 6, 1956, much after  the  coming into  force  of  that  Act.   If we  can  say  so  with  due deference,  the view taken on this point by the Bombay  High Court  in  Smt.   Indubai’s case (ibid) and  by  the  Madhya Pradesh  High Court in Kumari Ramali’s case (supra)  and  by Tare C.J. in Nahar Hirasingh’s case (ibid) is correct. The further  question  to be considered is  which  of  the parties  is  entitled  to succeed to the  interest  of  Smt. Sarji deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ? 569 The  General  Rules of succession in the case  of  a  female Hindu  dying intestate are given in Section 15 of  the  Act,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

which  so  far as it is material for the purpose,  reads  as follows :- "15 (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16- (a)  upon the sons and daughters (including the children  of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b)  upon the heirs of the husband; (c)  to (e) (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 predeceased 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." This Section should be read along with the Rules set out  in Section 16, the material part of which runs as under :               "The  order  of  succession  among  the  heirs               referred  to in Section 15 shall be,  and  the               distribution of the intestate’s property among               those heirs shall take place according to  the               following rules, namely :-               "Rule 1........               Rule 2..........               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) of 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 husband’s as the case  may               be,  and  such person had  died  intestate  in               respect   thereof   immediately   after    the               intestate’s death."                                (Emphasis supplied) The instant case will fall under clause (b), sub-section (2) of  Section  15,  because Smt.   Sarji  died  issueless  and intestate.  The interest in the suit property was  inherited by  her  from her husband.  The suit land  will,  therefore, under clause (b), go to the heirs of her husband, Punjya. 2-315SCI/78 570 The next question is, whether "the heirs of the husband" in Section  15  are  to be    with reference  to  the  date  of Punjyas  demise  in 1936, or with reference to the  date  of Shrimati Sarji’s death on November 6, 1956, when  succession opened out. There  appears to be some divergence of opinion  among  the, High  Courts on this point.  We are however of opinion  that once  it is found that the case falls under Section  15  (2) (b),  the  fiction  envisaged in Rule 3  of  Section  16  is attracted,   according   to  which,  for  the   purpose   of ascertaining the order of devolution, it is to be deemed  as if  the  husband had died intestate  immediately  after  the female  intestate’s death.  Bearing this fiction in mind  we have  then to go to the Schedule under Section 8 of the  Act to  find out as to who would be the heirs of  Smt.   Sarji’s husband  on  the date of her death.  Section 8  of  the  Act provides  that the property of a male Hindu dying  intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter :-               "(a)  Firstly,  upon  the  heirs,  being   the               relatives   specified  in  Class  1   of   the               Schedule;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

             (b) Secondly, if there is no heir of Class  1,               then  upon  the  heirs,  being  the  relatives               specified in Class II of the Schedule;               (c) Thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the               two  classes*,  then upon the agnates  of  the               deceased; and               Lastly,  if there is no agnate, then upon  the               cognates of the deceased." Now,  Smt.   Gopikabai,  Respondent  1  is  admittedly   the daughter  of  the sister of the last  male  holder,  Punjya; whereas  the  appellants are his  remote  agnates.   Neither party  falls  under  Class I  of  the  Schedule.   ’Sister’s daughter’ is Item 4 of Entry IV in Class II of the Schedule; while  agnates  do not figure anywhere in Class  II.   Thus, Smt.   Gopikabai’s case will come in clause ’(b)  Secondly’, of  Section 8 and, as such, she will be a preferential  heir of  the  husband of Smt.  Sarji, if he bad died  the  moment after  her  death on November 6, 1956.  In  this  view,  she would  exclude the defendants-agnates from inheritance  even according to ’personal law’ which, within the  contemplation of  Section  151  of  the  Code,  will  include  the   Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in force at the time when Smt.   Sarji died and succession opened out. In the result, we affirm the judgmentand  decree  of  the High Court     and dismiss this appeal with costs. S.R.                             Appeal dismissed. 571