Case Details Sachidhanandam Since Dead through His Lrs. vs E. Vanaja and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

6 November 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 3667 of 2018

Result

Disposed

Bench

Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Hima Kohli, Prashant Kumar Mishra

Citation

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 240 : 2023 INSC 984

Issue for consideration

Whether under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widow of the pre-deceased son has the first right or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss. 15 (1)(a) and 16 – Rules of succession in the case of female Hindus – Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu – First right of widow of the pre-deceased son to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law:

Headnote

Held: A combined reading of s. 15(1)(a) and s. 16 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 predeceased son or daughter) and the husband – Thus, 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 – No perversity in the findings recorded by the High Court holding that all the suit properties are joint family properties – However, the High Court is not correct in allotting 1/16th share to the plaintiff out of the share of her mother-in-law in the suit properties – Impugned judgment rendered by the High Court is modified only to the said extent. [Para 13, 10, 14]

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. Delay condoned in filing Special Leave Petition(C) Diary No(s). 7823 of 2018. 2. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). _____________ @ Special Leave Petition(C) Diary No(s). 7823 of 2018. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant no. 2 (Sachidhanandam) assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the High Court, allowing the regular second appeal in part, preferred by the plaintiff (E. Vanaja-respondent no. 1 herein). 4. Plaintiff’s suit for partition was allowed by

View Subscription Plans →