http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MST. MOHINDERO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1990

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  257            1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 475  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 605 JT 1990 (4)   265  1990 SCALE  (2)853

ACT:     Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Section 15(1)(a)--Succession to   estate  of  Hindu  widow--Daughter  of   the   deceased son--Preferential heir--Entitled to succession.

HEADNOTE:     Santi married Kisso and gave birth to a son, the  father of  the appellant. On the death of Kisso, Santi married  his brother, Ditto, who died issueless.     On  the death of Ditto, the mutation of his  estate  was sanctioned  in  Santi’s name, being his widow.  She  was  in possession of the same as life-Estate holder. She executed a gift-deed in favour of her grand daughter, the appellant  on December 27, 1955 and she died on October 6, 1956, after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act.     Kissi,  the sister of Santi’s husbands flied a suit  for possession  contending that she was a preferential  heir  of the suit property, and that the property had been  illegally mutated in the name of the appellant.     The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that  without challenging  the gift deed, the suit for possession was  not competent.     Meanwhile  Kissi, the plaintiff, having died, her  heirs the  respondents  preferred an appeal  before  the  District Judge.  An application to amend the plaint, so as  to  chal- lenge the validity of the gift was also flied. The  District Judge  allowed the application and the appeal, and  remanded the case for fresh trial.     Holding  the  gift to be invalid, the Trial  Court  dis- missed  the  suit  on the ground of  limitation,  which  was affirmed by the District Judge, in appeal.     The  Respondents’ Second Appeal to the High  Court,  was allowed  by a Single Judge who reversed the findings of  the Courts below on the issue of limitation. 476     The Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed.     The appellant in this Court has contended that the  gift being  invalid,  Santi,  the grandmother  of  the  appellant continued  to be a limited owner till the date of  the  com- mencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and  thereafter

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

by  virtue  of the provisions of the Act,  she  became  full owner  of  the  suit-property and the  appellant  being  the daughter of a predeceased son of Santi was the  preferential heir  under section 15(1)(a) of the Act and was entitled  to succeed  to  the  property. The  respondents  contended  the appeal  contending that unless it was factually proved  that appellant’s father was the son of Santi, the appellant could not get the benefit of section 15 of the Act. Allowing the appeal, this Court.     HELD:  1. The appellant being daughter of a  predeceased son  was  entitled to succeed to the property  of  Santi  in preference to the respondents-plaintiffs. [479D]     2.  Santi  held the property as limited owner  till  the coming into force of the Act. She became full owner thereaf- ter.  When  she died on October 6, 1956  succession  to  her property  was to be governed by the Act. Santi  having  died intestate, succession to her property was to be governed  by Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Act. Appellant  being the daughter of a predeceased son of Santi she had the first preference  to  succeed under Section 15(1)(a) of  the  Act. [479B-C]     This  Court found sufficient material on the  record  to prove  that  the appellant’s father was the  son  of  Santi. [479B]

JUDGMENT: