Hindu Succession Act | Section 15(2) Is Only Intended To Change Order Specified U/S 15(1), Not To Completely Eliminate Other Categories Of Heirs: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court observed that as per the Hindu Succession Act, succession under Section 15(2) is only intended to change the order specified under Section 15(1), not to completely eliminate other categories of heirs set out in Section 15(1).

Referring to the Apex Court judgment in State of Punjab vs Balwant Singh & Ors., the Bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that, "The Apex Court also discussed Section 15(1), (2) and 14 and so also effect of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, it intended only to change the order of succession specified in sub-section (1) and not to eliminate other categories of heirs set out in sub-section (1). Consequently, by virtue of sub-section (2), property should first go to heirs of father or husband as the case may be, female Hindu, inheriting property from her husband, dying intestate after commencement of the Act leaving behind no issue nor any heir from her husband’s side, but respondent (plaintiff) grandson of her brother claiming succession to her property, held respondent/plaintiff’s claim sustainable as he falls under subsection (1)(e) of Section 15."

Counsel B Roopesha appeared for the appellant, while Counsel AV Gangadharappa appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the plaintiff claimed ownership of a property originally belonging to Julalingappa. The plaintiff's father, Basappa, inherited the property after Julalingappa's death and was in possession for 41 years. The defendant disputed this, asserting ownership based on a sale deed from Kariyamma, Julalingappa's first wife.

The plaintiff sought a declaration and possession, claiming dispossession based on an interim order. The Trial Court granted the relief, but the First Appellate Court reversed it, stating the plaintiff failed to prove ownership and dispossession.

The appellant argued that the defendant, having lost earlier, was estopped from denying the plaintiff's title. The respondent contended the sale deed supported his possession and questioned the plaintiff's delay and lack of specific pleadings. The First Appellate Court's decision was based on the sale deed and factual inconsistencies, rejecting the plaintiff's claim.

The Court observed that, "the plaintiff is entitled to become the owner of the suit schedule property as per general rules of succession under Section 15 of the Act...the son of Julalingappa through Mallamma died intestate and as bachelor and when there are no other legal heirs, the property devolves upon the plaintiff".

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Appearances:

Appellant: Counsel B Roopesha

Respondents: Counsel AV Gangadharappa

Cause Title: Ramaiah vs Basappa & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment