A Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice HP Sandesh has observed that under the Hindu Succession Act, a mother as a Class-I heir is entitled to a share in her deceased son's property. Further, the Court clarified that the mother's death during the suit/appeal will not alter the situation, as Section 15 of the Act is attracted.

Counsel A Madhusudhana Rao appeared for the appellant, while Counsel Vinod Gowda, among others, appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the dispute revolved around the ownership and partition of certain properties. The plaintiffs, who were the wife and son of the deceased Santhosh, claimed that the properties in question were joint family assets shared between them and defendant No.1, who is Santhosh's father. They asserted their right to a 1/2 share in these properties and challenged a gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant No.2, contending that it was not binding on them. They also contested a sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favor of defendant No.3, arguing that it should not affect their rights.

The defendants countered these claims by asserting that there had been a partition during Santhosh's lifetime, during which he received money from the defendants as his share. They contended that Santhosh had used this money to purchase a specific piece of land, which they argued should be included in the suit if the other properties were considered joint family assets. They also raised the issue of plaintiff No.2's remarriage after Santhosh's death, claiming that she was not entitled to a share in the properties.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the suit schedule properties were indeed joint family assets, the gift deed was not binding, and the sale deed should not affect their rights.

However, the First Appellate Court modified the judgment, holding that land was also joint family property but that plaintiff No.2's remarriage did not disqualify her from inheriting. The appellant, the mother of Santhosh, who passed away during the proceedings, challenged this decision, contending that she should have been included as a necessary party and was entitled to a share in her son's property.

The High Court formed the following substantial questions of law:

i) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in ignoring the fact that the appellant was a Class-I heir of deceased Santhosh, and therefore, she was entitled to claim her share along with plaintiffs in the suit?

ii) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in not allotting appropriate share to the appellant?

Holding that the approach of the First Appellate Court was erroneous, the High Court observed that, "The First Appellate Court fails to take note of the fact that she became Class-I heir on account of death of her son. No doubt her husband is alive, but as soon as her son passed away, she became the Class-I heir of the deceased son Santhosh and the same was not considered by the Trial Court and erroneously proceeded that mother cannot be considered as co-parcener and she cannot claim any independent share in the ancestral and joint family properties. The very approach of the First Appellate Court is also erroneous since the original appellant in this appeal has not claimed any independent share in the ancestral and joint family properties as co-parcener and she has claimed the share out of the share of her son Santhosh who passed away leaving behind his mother who is the original appellant in this appeal and hence, the very approach of the First Appellate Court that the original appellant in this appeal is not a necessary party is erroneous and also erroneously comes to the conclusion that she is not entitled for share and the very approach of the First Appellate Court that during the life time of Defendant No.1 i.e. husband of the original appellant of this appeal is not entitled for a share is also erroneous approach and hence this Court has to reverse the said finding in coming to the conclusion that she is a Class-I heir and she is also entitled for a share in the property left by her son being the Class-I heir along with wife of the deceased and also the son of the deceased."

Reiterating that the deceased mother was a Class-I heir of her deceased son, and was entitled for a 1/3rd share in the suit property property, the Court took the considered view to invoke Section 15 of the Act, which holds that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16,- firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband.

Hence, both questions of law were answered in the affirmative, and the appeal was allowed while holding that, "The judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are modified granting 10/27 share each to defendant Nos.1 and 2, 4/27 share to plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 3/27 share and to draw the decree accordingly."

Cause Title: Smt. TN Susheelamma & Anr. v. Sri. Chirag Raghavendra & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice HP SandeshHindu Succession Act

Verdictum News Desk