Indian Succession Act| Mother Doesn’t Have Legal Right To Share If Son Dies Intestate Leaving Behind Wife & Children: Karnataka High Court

The appeal before the High Court was filed to set aside the order passed by the Court of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge.

The Single Bench of Justice Jyoti M held,“If a son dies intestate, leaving behind a wife and children, the mother does not have a legal right to a share. The judgment is contrary to Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court overlooked that the mother only succeeds in the absence of lineal descendants (direct descendants). Since the son died intestate, leaving a wife and children, the mother is not a legal heir.”

Advocate Pruthveen Kattimani represented the Appellant.

Factual Background

The deceased husband of the first appellant and the father of the second and third appellants was a Christian by religion, and the appellants are also Christians. The late Herold Vaz died intestate without leaving any will or testament. The deceased Herold Vaz had invested certain money in Reliance Group of Companies shares without nominating a nominee for transmission of shares after his lifetime.

The appellants, being the lineal descendants, sought transmission of shares scheduled to the petition in their favour, along with all the necessary papers. However, the appellants were informed that the said shares could not be transferred in their name without furnishing a succession certificate issued by a Competent Court of Law. Appellants submitted a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, on the file of XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The Trial Court dismissed the petition. Under these circumstances, the appellants filed the appeal before the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the late Herold died intestate, and he is survived by his wife and children as his lineal descendants. As per the Bench, the Trial Court refused the certificate on the mistaken premise that the mother's status as a legal heir precluded the applicant's claim. The Bench held that the Trial Court improperly rejected the application, citing the mother's legal heir status as the exclusive reason to deny the certificate.

“The Trial Court erred in law by failing to apply Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provide that the mother does not inherit if the deceased is survived by a widow and lineal descendants (children). The Trial Court erred in law by failing to recognize that under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the mother of the intestate is excluded from inheritance when a wife and children survive the deceased. As the intestate left behind lineal descendants (wife and children), the entire estate devolves upon them, and the mother holds no legal right to a share. According to Section 33 of the Act, if the intestate dies leaving a widow and lineal descendants, 1/3rd of the property goes to the widow and 2/3rd to the lineal descendants”, it held.

The Bench noted that upon the intestate succession of Herold, the estate is to be distributed among the widow and surviving children as direct lineal descendants. The Bench made it clear that the appellants constitute the direct lineal descendants of the late Herold Vaz and are entitled to succeed to his estate or assets by operation of law. “To be more precise, the appellants, being the direct lineal descendants of Mr.Herold Vaz, hold the legal right to succeed to his estate”, the Bench held while allowing the appeal and directing the Trial Court to grant the Succession Certificate in favour of the appellants.

Cause Title: Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz v. Nil (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:5798)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Pruthveen Kattimani, Giridhar H.

Click here to read/download Order