Section 15(1) Hindu Succession Act Can Work Against Woman Herself; Needs Rectification: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court remarked that Section 15(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 can work against the woman herself.
The Court said that such a provision is an anomaly in the legislation, which needs rectification.
The Court was deciding a case in which a widow had approached the court relating to a partition suit by filing a plea against her son.
A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “While the intention of the legislature under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1956 may have been bona fide; however, the present case is demonstrative of how Section 15(1) of the Act,1956 unfortunately, works against the woman herself i.e. the widow of a pre-deceased son. … Merely because a case appears to be hard, it cannot permit the invocation of a different interpretation of a statutory provision which is otherwise impermissible. It is now a well settled principle of law that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous as observed by the Apex Court in Omprakash vs Radhacharan, (2009) 15 SCC 66. This Court, therefore, has no option but to interpret Section 15 of the Act, 1956 as it exists, even if it is unjust towards the plaintiff.”
Advocate Neeraj Gupta appeared for the plaintiff while Advocate Sanjay Rathi appeared for the defendant.
Brief Facts -
The plaintiff, a widow had filed a suit for partition against her son (defendant) claiming 50% share in a property having inherited the same from the said property from her mother-in-law who was the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. Her mother-in-law had entered into a Memorandum of Family Settlement with her two sons, daughter and her husband wherein the parties mutually agreed for division of the suit property in the manner described therein. The portion of the property was agreed to come to the share of plaintiff’s husband.
The plaintiff’s husband expired in 2000, leaving behind his wife (plaintiff), son (defendant), and daughter as the legal heirs. Pertinently, the daughter already executed a Relinquishment Deed via which she relinquished her share in favour of the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, sought judgment/decree in her favour and she filed a suit for partition, permanent injunction, and rendition of accounts against her son. It was submitted that the defendant and his wife were even harassing the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case said, “The Relinquishment Deed, though registered, registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar IIA, Punjabi Bagh on 18.01.2010, has been executed on Non-Judicial Stamp paper worth Rs. 100. Therefore, the Relinquishment Deed dated 18.01.2010 to the extent of Ms. Pallvai's share transferred to the plaintiff, in its substantive form, is Gift Deed executed in her favour. Therefore, based on the admissions of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to 25% share (50% of Pallavi’s share) in the suit property through this registered instrument.”
Before parting, the Court noted that the Relinquishment Deed, which was interpreted as Gift Deed qua the share of the plaintiff was not sufficiently stamped, and to avoid any controversy in future as immovable property is for posterity, it directed that the plaintiff/ defendant, whosoever is in possession of the original Deed, shall file the Original Relinquishment Deed within seven days before the Joint Registrar, who shall impound and forward it to the Collector/Registrar of Stamps for payment of the deficit Stamp duty on it, and shall accordingly return the duly stamped document to the court within three months.
“Prior to enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, several limitations were in place under the Customary law against the right of a Hindu woman to acquire, hold or dispose her properties. The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 was the initiation of recognition of a woman’s right to property which gave her limited estate in property. Under the Act, 1937, the widows received the same interest as her husband in his joint property and widows were also included as heirs to her husband's property in the same manner as son”, the Court said in its parting note.
The Court added that, however, the path breaking ameliorative and progressive legislation was the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 wherein under Section 14 of the Act, absolute right of Hindu woman to the estate was recognized in any property acquired by her before or after the commencement of the Act, 1956 and while this might come across as an inevitable change in the circumstances today, but it was indeed a monumental amelioratory stride towards woman empowerment.
“Based on the recognition of her absolute rights on her property, the Act, 1956 further established the scheme of intestate succession of a woman’s estate under Section 15 & 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. … The estate of a Hindu Woman dying intestate, devolves upon her children and husband. In case a child predeceases her, the share of the predeceased child devolves upon the son or daughter of the predeceased child, to the exclusion of the spouse of the predeceased person”, it further observed.
The Court also noted that while under the Class I to the Schedule under Hindu Succession Act, on demise of a Hindu Male, the wife and children of a predeceased son are recognised as heirs, however, when it comes to the rules of succession as expounded in Section 15 of the Act in regard to a Female, the pre-deceased daughter or son are not treated at par with the surviving son and daughter; instead of the benefit going to the all his/her legal heirs of the pre-deceased daughter or son, it gets limited to the children alone to the exclusion of the spouse of the pre-deceased child.
“The result being that the children of such pre-deceased child alone take the benefit of the estate of their grandmother, who has died intestate. … The consequence, as in the present case, is that a widowed daughter-in-law who may have served her mother-in-law during her lifetime and also taken care of her children, suffers a rude shock to realise that despite being a member of her matrimonial family, she gets no protection of property and is vulnerable to being shown the door by her own children at an age when she actually needs the security of property”, it added.
The Court concluded that the above case is not an isolated incident in our Society and hence, it needs to be acknowledged and highlighted that axiomatically, a provision intended to benefit one woman (deceased woman), is working to the disadvantage of another woman (widow/ daughter in law).
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the application and passed a preliminary decree of partition.
Cause Title- Rekha Oberoi v. Amit Oberoi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4340)
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Advocate Neeraj Gupta
Defendant: Advocates Sanjay Rathi, Nirmala Rathi, Jaanvi Rathi, and Deepak Khatri.