http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SATYA CHARAN DUTTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: URMILLA SUNDARI DASSI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/09/1969

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1714            1970 SCR  (2) 294  1970 SCC  (2) 868

ACT: Hindu  Succession  Act (30 of 1956), ss. 8, 9,  11,  15  and Hindu  widow  dying intestate--Husband’s  brothers    and  a sister  only heirs --Property, that of husband--If  brothers take in  preference to sister or all take equally.

HEADNOTE: Under  ss.  15  and 16 of the Hindu  Succession  Act,  1956, which  deal with rules regarding succession to the  property of  a  female  Hindu,  where the property  is  that  of  her husband,  the heirs would be those set out in    8 Under  s. 8, there arc two classes of heirs mentioned in the  Schedule to  the Act.  In Class 11 there are IX entries and  only  in entries  11, 111 and IV the heirs are mentioned  as  against arabic  numerals.  ’Brother’ and ’sister’ arc  mentioned  as items  (3)  and (4) in entry-II of Class 11. Section 9  lays down that among the heirs specified in the Schedule those in Class  I shall take simultaneously and to the  exclusion  of all  other heirs and those in the entry-I in Class II  shall be preferred to those in entry-II and so on.     A  Hindu widow, in possession of her deceased  husband’s properties, died in 1964-.  She left no lineal  descendants, but  her husband had three brothers and a sister  surviving. On the. question  whether .the three brothers were  entitled to  succeed to the property in preference to the sister,  on the ground that ’brother’ is mentioned as item (3) of entry- II of Class 11, whereas ’sister’ is mentioned as item (4), HELD:  If  the intention was to give  preference  among  the heirs in Class 11 according to Arabic numerals treating such numerical  item as a separate entry, some provision to  that effect  would  have been made in s. 11.  Section  11  states that  the property of an intestate  shall  be divided  among the  heirs  specified in any one entry in Class II  so  that they share equally, and the language in ss. 9 and I 1 is not consistent  with  the view that Arabic  numerals  constitute entries within the meaning of s. 11.  Further, the scheme of the  Act  is  that male and female heirs  should  get  equal treatment, and, in Class 1, male and female heirs have  been treated  as equal.  There is no reason why  any  distinction should  have  been made among the heirs in Class 11  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

ground  of  sex.   Therefore, it is  not  possible,  in  the absence of any indication in the sections or in the Schedule itself,  to  attribute  such a radical  departure  from  the general  scheme  of classification that, in  case  of  three entries  only  in Class 11. (entries II, III  and  IV),  the Legislature  intended to create an order of  preference  and lay  down the same by the use of Arabic numerals. [299  C-D, H; 300 B--H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1356 of 1956.     Appeal  from the judgment and decree dated  December  3, 1965  of  the Calcutta High Court in  Appeal  from  Original Decree No. 85 of 1965. 295 D.N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.     M.C.  Bhandare, Pratap Singh and K. Rajendra  Chaudhuri, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Grover,  J.   This is an appeal by  certificate  from  a judgment of the Calcutta High Court.     The facts may be briefly stated.  One  Ratanamala  Dassi who  was  governed  by the Bengal School  of  Hindu  Law  as modified  by  the  Hindu Succession  Act  1956,  hereinafter called   the Act, died intestate in January 1964 leaving  no issue   or  lineal descendants.  Her husband Monmotha   Nath Dutt   had  predeceased her.  The said Ratnamala Dassi  left her   surviving  the appellant and respondents 2 and 3,  the brothers  of her husband and respondent 1,  Urmilla  Sundari Dassi  her  husband’s  sister.  In  1964  respondent  No.  1 instituted  a suit for a declaration that as an  heiress  of Ratnamala  Dassi  she  had  1/4 share  in  the  movable  and immovable property left by her and that she be allotted  her share  by  partition  of those  properties.   The  appellant entered  appearance  and  took up the plea  in  his  written statement  that  under the Act he and respondents  2  and  3 being the brothers of the husband of the deceased  Ratnamala Dassi were the heirs in preference: to respondent 1 who. was the  sister of the deceased’s  husband.  The suit was  tried on  the  original  side by a learned  Single  Judge  of  the Calcutta  High Court who  granted a  preliminary  decree  on December 23, 1964 in favour of respondent 1 holding that she had  1/4 share in the estate left by Ratnamala  Dassi.   The appellant  preferred  an appeal to a division  bench   which was dismissed.     The  sole point which-has to be considered  is  whether, according to the order of succession as laid  down in  Class II of the Schedule to s. 8 of the Act, brother would succeed in  preference  to  the sister or whether  the  brother  and sister   would  succeed  .jointly  having  equal  shares   ? According  to s. 15(1 ) when a  female Hindu dies  intestate her  property devolves according to the Rules set out in  s. 16.   Section 15 divides  the  groups of heirs of  a  female dying intestate into five categories  described as   Entries (a)  to  (e).  We are concerned, in the present  case,  with Entry  (b)  which  is  "secondly,  upon  the  heirs  of  the husband".  Section 16 provides that the order of  succession among  heirs  referred  to  in  s.  15  shall  be  and   the distribution  of the intestate’s property among those  heirs shall take place  according to the following    Rules:                   Rule  l:--"Among  the heirs  specified  in               sub-section  (1 ) of section 15, those in  one               entry shall be preferred

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             296               to  those in any succeeding entry,  and  those               included   in  the  same  entry   shall   take               simultaneously.               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 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." As  the property in the present case  was of   the   husband of  Ratnamala Dassi we have to turn to s. 8 to find out  who would have been his heirs.  Section 8 reads:                   Section  8 "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.               (b) secondly, if there is no  heir of class 1,               then  upon  the  heirs,  being  the  relatives               specified in class 1I of the Schedule               (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the               two  classes,  then upon the  agnates  of  the               deceased; and               (d)  lastly, if there is no agnate then  upon’               the cognates of the deceased." The Schedule mentioned in s. 8 to the extent it is  material is reproduced below :--               CLASS 1                   "Son;   daughter; widow; mother; son of  a               predeceased  son;  daughter of  a  predeceased               son;  son of a predeceased daughter;  daughter               of   a  predeceased  daughter;  widow   of   a               predeceased son; son of a predeceased son of a               predeceased son; daughter of a predeceased son               of  a predeceased son; widow of a  predeceased               son of a predeceased son.                       CLASS 11               I. Father.               297                   II.  (1) Son’s daughter’s son,  (2)  son’s               daughter’s daughter, (3) brother, (4) sister.               III  .................               VII  ................               VIII  ................               Explanation  .............  " Section  9 lays down that among the heirs specified  in  the Schedule  those in class 1 shall take simultaneously and  to the exclusion of all other heirs and those m the first entry in class II shall be preferred to. those in the second entry and so on.  Section 11 is to the effect that the property of an interstate shall be divided in any one entry in class  II of  the Schedule so that they share equally.     Before  the High Court the contention raised on behalf of the  appellant was  that "brother" being prefixed by arabic numeral 3  came before "sister" which word had the numeral (4) before it and that  the object of using the numerals within  a  particular group   was  to  prescribe  the  order  of   precedence   or preference.   It was also argued that the use of the  arabic

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

numerals in groups II, III and IV of Class II must have some meaning;  otherwise  the legislature would  have  used  such numerals in respect of the heirs not only in class II but in class  I as well.  The learned judges of the division  bench felt  that  the use of the arabic numerals  appeared  to  be redundant but "the combined effect of this section read with the  others seems to. be that the legislature intended  that the  heirs  named after numerals II,III  IV  composed  three entries only".     We are unable to accede to the argument that the use  of arabic numerals is decisive of the point whether or not  the heirs   specified   in  entry  II  of   class   II   succeed simultaneously  and  equally.  It is  inconceivable  that  a matter  of  such  importance should have been  left  to  the employment  of  numerals  alone.  If the  intention  of  the legislature  was that each class of relatives shown  against the  arabic  numerals  constituted  an  entry  express   and specific  provisions to that effect would have been made  in the  substantive  sections of the Act.  Indeed  s.  Il  says quite  clearly  that the property of an intestate  shall  be divided  between  the heirs specified in any  one  entry  in class  II of the  Schedule so that they share equally.  That language  would  not be consistent with the view  that  file heirs shown against the arabic numerals constitute an  entry within the meaning of s. 11. The Act was meant to lay down a comprehensive  and  uniform system of  inheritance  and  its scheme is to 298 prescribe  a set of rules for succession to the property  of male  and female Hindus dying intestate.  Sections 8  to  13 contain  the  general rules relating to  succession  to  the property   of   a  male  Hindu  including  the   matter   of ascertainment  of  shares.  Sections 15 and 16  contain  the general  rules  affecting succession to the  property  of  a female Hindu.  The  rules  relating  to  preferential  heirs are given in s.10.  If the intention was to give  preference among  the heirs in Class II according to.  arabic  numerals treating  the same as a separate entry some provision  would undoubtedly  have  been made in s.11 for that  purpose.   As noticed  before  it  is that section which  deals  with  the distribution  of  property among heirs in class  II  of  the Schedule.   Indeed s.11 would be wholly unnecessary if  each one of the heirs mentioned in each entry of class II were to take  preference to the next one in the. same entry.  It  is also. significant that in class 1 male and female heirs have been  treated  as  equal.   There  is  no  reason  why   any distinction  should have been made among the heirs in  class II  on  the ground of the heir being male  or  female.   For instance  in  entry  II in class Il  a  brother  would  have preference  over  the sister and in his presence  the  later would  succeed if the submission on behalf of the  appellant is  to.  be accepted.  No reason or justification  has  been suggested   for  making  such  a distinction.  Similarly  on the  appellant’s  argument the son’s daughter’s  son  should have  preference over the son’s daughter’s  daughter.   That again would run counter to the whole scheme of the Act  that male  and female heirs should get equal treatment.  It  must be   remembered  that  the  Act  incorporated  one  of   the principal   reforms  which had become a  pressing  necessity owing to the-changed social and economic conditions in Hindu society   that   in   succession  there  should   be   equal distribution between male and female heirs.     It  is  true that the  draftsmen  while   employing  the arabic  numerals  in entries Il to IV of class II  only  are likely  to  have something in mind but on the whole  and  in

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

view  of  the  reasons  which  have  been  given  above   no particular  significance  can  be given to the  use  of  the arabic numerals. Generally speaking numbers or numerals  are employed  in a statute for the sake of convenient  and  easy reference  but  their use  cannot  override  the   statutory provisions.   Nor  is  it possible in the  ’absence  of  any indication  in  the sections or in the  Schedule  itself  to attribute  such a radical departure from the general  scheme of  classification of heirs, as has been suggested,  namely, that  in  case  of  three  entries  only  in  class  11  the legislature  intended to create an order of  preference  and lay down the same by the use of arabic numerals.     There  is no merit in this appeal which fails and it  is dismissed with costs. V.P.S.                  Appeal  dismissed. 299