# FATEH BIBI ETC v. CHARAN DASS

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 953
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, V. Bhargava, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/fateh-bibi-etc-v-charan-dass-5003
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Hindu Law of Inheritance, (Amendment) Act, 1929 (Act 2 of 1929)-
Act wheth~r applies in case of Hindu male dying in-estate before thei
Act came into operation and succeeded by female heir dying after that
dc .. te-Succession tp estate of last male owner when opens.
K's son C died in 1925 and was succeeded in the ownership of his
properties (inherited from K) by his mother B.
B continued in possession
till her death in 1946.
Her daughter M took possession of the properties
as heir.
M died in 1950.
The respondent-plaintiff was the son of M.
In
1955 he filed a suit alleging that the defendant, after the death of B
claiming to be entitled to the properties as a collateral and revisioner of
K, had got mutation of the aforesaid properties effected in his name.
As
daughter's son of K the respondent-plaintiff prayed for declaration of his
title to the suit properties; he also prayed for recovery of pos:tession thei'e~
of from the defendant.
The defendant contended that he wa. a collateral
.of K and was entitled to succeed to the properties after the termination
of the life-estate of his widow B on her death in 1946. The trial court
held that in view of the provisions of the Hindu
Law of Inheritance
(Amendment) Act 1929 (Act 2 of 1929) the plaintiff as sisters' son of
C the last male holder, had a preferential claim to that of the defendant
who was only a paternal uncle of C.
The first appellate Court upheld
the decree of the trial Court.
In second appeal by the defendant before
the High Court the learned Single Judge held that as C the last male
owner had died in 1925 his heirs must be found on that date.
On that
date according to the learned Judge the heir of C was the defendant. The
fact that the life.estate of the mother and sister of C intervened after his
death would not affect the rights of the defendant as the Act of 1929, had
no retrospe~tive operation.
In Letters Patent Appe~I the Division Bench
reversed the judgment of the Single Judge. The, legal representatives of
the· defendant appealed to this Court by certificate. The question of Jaw
that fell for consideration was whether the Act applies only to the case
of a Hindu male dying intestate on or. after February 21, 1929 when the
Act came into force or whether it also applies to the case of a Hindu male
dying intestate before the Act came into operation and succeeded by a
female heir who died after that date,
It was not disputed that C held
the pfoperty absolutely and he died intestate.
HELD: Applying the rule laid down hy the Judicial Commi.tte~ of the
Privy Council in Lala D1111i Chand'.\· case the appeal must be d1sn11ssed.
The point of time for the applicability of the Act is when the succession opens ri:;,,. v,ihen the life estate terminates.
In consequence the qucs·
tion as to who is the nearest revcrsionarv heir. or \Vhat is the class of
reversionary heirs \'.'ill fall to he settled at the date of the expirv of the
ownerS:hip for life or lives.
Th~ dc·ath of a
flindu fen1alc
life-estate
owner oocns the inheritance to the rcvcrsioncrs and the one n1ost nearly
related <it the tin1C to the last full l'\Vncr hccon1cs entitled to the estate.
!961 E]
LI JS1pCl(NP )70-16
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
The Act accordingly must be held to apply to the case oi a Hindu
male dying intestate before the Act came into operation and succeeded
by a female heir who died after that date. In this case as decided by all
the Courts the last female heir died only- on March 25; 1950 and, under
the Act, the plaintiff as the sister's son of C, was entitled to succeed to
his estate, in prefe{'ence to the defendant who was only a paternal uncle.
Under the Act the paternal uncle is postponed to
the
four
relations
referred to in the Act, the last of whom is the sister's son. [961 GJ
A
B
It may also be stated, though the question was not
raised
by
the
parties, that in this case the succession can be considered to have opened
even in 1946 on the termination of the life-estate of C's mot

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
FATEH BIBI ETC.
v.
CHARAN DASS
March IO, 1970
953
(S. M. SIKRI, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Hindu Law of Inheritance, (Amendment) Act, 1929 (Act 2 of 1929)-
Act wheth~r applies in case of Hindu male dying in-estate before thei
Act came into operation and succeeded by female heir dying after that
dc .. te-Succession tp estate of last male owner when opens.
K's son C died in 1925 and was succeeded in the ownership of his
properties (inherited from K) by his mother B.
B continued in possession
till her death in 1946.
Her daughter M took possession of the properties
as heir.
M died in 1950.
The respondent-plaintiff was the son of M.
In
1955 he filed a suit alleging that the defendant, after the death of B
claiming to be entitled to the properties as a collateral and revisioner of
K, had got mutation of the aforesaid properties effected in his name.
As
daughter's son of K the respondent-plaintiff prayed for declaration of his
title to the suit properties; he also prayed for recovery of pos:tession thei'e~
of from the defendant.
The defendant contended that he wa. a collateral
.of K and was entitled to succeed to the properties after the termination
of the life-estate of his widow B on her death in 1946. The trial court
held that in view of the provisions of the Hindu
Law of Inheritance
(Amendment) Act 1929 (Act 2 of 1929) the plaintiff as sisters' son of
C the last male holder, had a preferential claim to that of the defendant
who was only a paternal uncle of C.
The first appellate Court upheld
the decree of the trial Court.
In second appeal by the defendant before
the High Court the learned Single Judge held that as C the last male
owner had died in 1925 his heirs must be found on that date.
On that
date according to the learned Judge the heir of C was the defendant. The
fact that the life.estate of the mother and sister of C intervened after his
death would not affect the rights of the defendant as the Act of 1929, had
no retrospe~tive operation.
In Letters Patent Appe~I the Division Bench
reversed the judgment of the Single Judge. The, legal representatives of
the· defendant appealed to this Court by certificate. The question of Jaw
that fell for consideration was whether the Act applies only to the case
of a Hindu male dying intestate on or. after February 21, 1929 when the
Act came into force or whether it also applies to the case of a Hindu male
dying intestate before the Act came into operation and succeeded by a
female heir who died after that date,
It was not disputed that C held
the pfoperty absolutely and he died intestate.
HELD: Applying the rule laid down hy the Judicial Commi.tte~ of the
Privy Council in Lala D1111i Chand'.\· case the appeal must be d1sn11ssed.
The point of time for the applicability of the Act is when the succession opens ri:;,,. v,ihen the life estate terminates.
In consequence the qucs·
tion as to who is the nearest revcrsionarv heir. or \Vhat is the class of
reversionary heirs \'.'ill fall to he settled at the date of the expirv of the
ownerS:hip for life or lives.
Th~ dc·ath of a
flindu fen1alc
life-estate
owner oocns the inheritance to the rcvcrsioncrs and the one n1ost nearly
related <it the tin1C to the last full l'\Vncr hccon1cs entitled to the estate.
!961 E]
LI JS1pCl(NP )70-16
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
The Act accordingly must be held to apply to the case oi a Hindu
male dying intestate before the Act came into operation and succeeded
by a female heir who died after that date. In this case as decided by all
the Courts the last female heir died only- on March 25; 1950 and, under
the Act, the plaintiff as the sister's son of C, was entitled to succeed to
his estate, in prefe{'ence to the defendant who was only a paternal uncle.
Under the Act the paternal uncle is postponed to
the
four
relations
referred to in the Act, the last of whom is the sister's son. [961 GJ
A
B
It may also be stated, though the question was not
raised
by
the
parties, that in this case the succession can be considered to have opened
even in 1946 on the termination of the life-estate of C's mother and
accordingly C's sister must be considered to have succeeded to the property
of her brother, in her own right as a preferential heir under the Act,
though the estate taken by her was also under s. 3 (b) only a life estate.
~61ffi
c
Lala Duni Chand v. Muscmmat Anar Kali, LR. 73 I.A. 187, fOllowed
and applied.
Krishnan Chettiar v. Manikammal, I.LR. 57 Mad. 718, Kanhaiya Lal
v. Mst. Champa Devi A.I.R. 1935 All. 203, Lakshmi v. Ananaharama,
,-
I.LR. 1937 Mad. 948 (F.B.) Rajpa/i Kunwar v. Sarju Rai, I.LR. 58 All.
D
1041 (F.B.) Annagouda Nathgouda Patil v. Court of Wards. [1952] S.C.R.
208, 215, Shrimati Shakuntala Devi v. Kaushalya Devi; I.LR. 17 Lah. 356,
,T'okhan Dusadh v. Mst. Manoa, I.LR. 16 Pat. 215 (F.B.) and Bindeshari
Singh v. Baij Nath Singh, I.L.R. 13 Luck 380, referred to.
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 364 of
19~.
E
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October
30,
1961 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 42
of 1959.
G. S. Vohra and· Harbans Singh, for the appellants.
Bishan Narain, J.
B. Dadachanji,
0. C.
Mathur ·and
Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J.-The short
question that
arises
for
consideration in this appeal, filed by the legal representatives of
the deceased defendant, on certificate, is whether on a true
construction of the Hiitdu Law of Inheritance (Amendment)
Act, 1929 (Act II of 1929) (hereinafter referred to as the Act),
h applies only to the case of a Hindu male dying intestate on or
after February 21, 1929 (when the Act came into fqrce) or
''ether it applies in the case of a Hindu male dying intestate before the Act came ipto operation and succeeded by a female heir
who died after that date.
F
G
H
'
•
A
I
c
D
'
E
F
G
H
FATEH BIBI v. CHARAN<DASS (Vaidialingam, /.)
955
The following pedigree will be useful in appreciating the relationship of the parties as well as the basis of the claim made
regarding the title to the properties by the parties.
MJhri
Daso~dbi
I
Dayala
I
I
Tota
I
Thakur Dass
I
Kirpa Ram-Bishan Devi
Bishna@
Bishan Singh
(Defendant)
I
Charallii Lal
I
Maya Devi·Nand Lal
I
Charan Dass
(Plaintiff)
The respondent-plaintiff instituted Suit No. 41 of 1955 in the
Subordinate Judge's Court, Jagraon, against the original defendant
for recovery of possession of the suit properties. According to the
plaintiff Kirpa Ram was the last owner of the properties. Even
during his life-time his only son Charanji Lal had died. On the
death of Kirpa Ram, his widow Bishan Devi became the owner of
the properties and was in possession of the properties for her lifetime. After the death of Bishan Devi, her daughter Maya Devi
(daughter of Kirpa Ram and Bishan Devi) became her heir and
remained in possession of the property till her death. After Maya
Devi's death, according to Dharma Shastras the plaintiff, as the
daughter's son of Kirpa Ram, was entitled to succeed :0 the properties which were in the possession of Bishan Devi and later on of
Maya Devi, his mother. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the
defendant, after the death of Bishan Devi, claiming to be entitled to the properties of Kirpa Ram, got mutation in the
Revenue Registers effected in his name on or about January
6, 194 7, Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had
no right, title or interest to the properties of Kirpa Ram and the
mutation obtained by him could nGt affect the rights of the
plaintiff as the daughter's son.of Kirpa Ram. On these allegations the plaintiff pray~d for a declaration regarding his title to
the property and for recovery of possession of the same from
the defendant.
The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff on vaiious
grounds. He alleged that Charanji Lal did not pre-decease Kirpa
Ram but, on the other hand, after the death of JGtpa Ram,
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970) 3 S.C.ll.
Charanji Lal, his son, became heir and was in possession of the
A
properties Jen by his father. Charanji Lal died long afterwards,
m or about 1926 and, after his death, his mother Bishan Devi
~ecame heir to the property left by Charanji Lal, for her lifetime. After the death of Bishan Devi, the defendant
claimed
that he, as a collateral of Kirpa Ram, became entitled to the
properties of the latter and, as such, got mutation effected in his
B
favour, according to law. He further averred that Maya Devi
did not at all come into possession of the estate after the death of
Bishan Devi. In fact the defendant even disputed the fact that
Maya Devi was the daughter of Bishan Devi. Even if Maya Devi
w~s the daughter bf Bishan Devi, the defendant alleged that
according to the custom governing the parties, Maya Devi had c
no right to the properties left by Bishan Devi. On these allegations, the defendant maintained that he was rightly entitled to
the properties of Kirpa Ram and that the plaintiff has no cause
of action for having the mutation effected in the Revenue
Registers in his favour cancelled.
The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated February
22, 1956 decreed the plaintiff's claim. It found that Maya Devi
was the daughter of Kirpa Ram ands Bishan Devi and that the
plaintiff was the son of Maya Devi. The Trial Court further
found that Charanji Lal did not pre-decease his father Kirpa
Ram but, on the other hand, after the death of Kirpa Ram,
Charan ji Lal was the last male holder of the entire property and
was in possession, as such, till his death. It was also further
found that the parties were governed by their personal law and
not by custom in matters of succession. It has been found that
Charanji Lal died issueless on August 22, 1925 and, after his
death, his mother Bishan Devi was in possession of the property
as a life-estate holder.
After her death on November 26, 1946
Maya Devi was in possession of the property, again as a Iifeestate holder, till her death on March 25, 1950. Though no
claim was made by the plaintiff to succeed to Charl\nii Lal as
his sister's son, and though his claim was to succeed to the
property of Kirpa Ram as the latter's daughter's son, the Trial
Court held that on the findings that Charanji Lal was the last
male holder, the claim of the plaintiff had really to be decided
on the basis of the Act under which the plaintiff, as the sister's
son of Charanji Lal, has got a preferential claim. The contention
of the defendant that the Act did not apply inasmuch as
Charanji Lal had died long before the date when the Act came
into force (February 21. 1929), was no_t accepted and the ~o~rt
took the view that succession opened m favour of the plamt1ff
only after the death of Maya Devi in I ?SO" In this view the trial
Court held that the plaintiff, bemg the sisters son of the last male
holder (Charanji Lall was to :be preferred to the defendant who
D
E
F
G
H
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
FATEH BIBI v. CHARAN DASS (Vaidialingam, J.)
957
was only a paternal uncle of Charanji Lal and as such, decreed
the suit.
The defendant i;:arried the matter in appeal before the
learned District Judge, Ludhiana, in C.A.53
of 1956. Tue
learned Judge, in the judgment dated March 14, 1957, has
stated that the defendant only attacked the finding of the trial
Court that the plaintiff was the daughter's son of Kirpa Ram and
the findings on the other issues were not challenged. Tue le::u:ned
Judge, on this point, agreed with the finding of the trial Court
that Maya Devi was the daughter of Kirpa Ram and Bishan
Devi and that the plaintiff was the son of Maya Devi. Tue decree
of the trial Court was cofirmed.
Tue defendant again challen.ged the decrees of both the
Subordinate Courts before the Punjab High Court in
Regwar
Second Appeal No. 359 of 1957. Before the learned S_ingle
Judge the appelant raised two contentions : (1) That the plaintiff never set up any claim as a preferential heir under the Act
being the sister's on of the last male holder and, as such, bis
title should not have been recognised by the Subordinate Collrts;
and (2) In any event, the Act does not apply inasmuch :13 the
last male holder Charanji Lal died as early as August 22. 1925,
long before the coming into force of the Act on Feb:uary
21, 1929.
Tue learned Judge, after a reference to the pleadings, held
that the first contention was
well-founded
as the plaintiff
claimed title to . the properties only as the daughter's son of
Kirpa Ram and had even 'alleged that Charanji Lal had predeceased his father and no clainI as the sister's son of . Charanji
Lal was over made. But, in view of the lip.dings recorded by the
two Subordinate Courts that the plaintiff was the sister's son of
Charanji Lal who had also been held to be the last male holder,
the learned Sli:igl.e Judge held that the applicability of the Act
did arise for consideration.
Tue learned Judge agreed with the findings of
the
two
Courts that Charanji Lal was the last male holder of the properties in question and that he was the absolute owner of those
-properties and there was no question of the property in his hands
being coparcenary property. But, regarding the applicability of
the Act, the learned Judge held that as Charanji Lal died on
August 22, 1925 the, succession .to his estated must be considered to have opened on the date of his death a!1d, as the A~~
came into force only on February 21, 1929 the hen:s of Charan11
Lal must be found on the date the succession opened,
viz.,
August 22, 1925; and the heir to Charanji Lal on that date was
95$
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 s.c.R.
his paternal uncle, the defendant. According to
the
learned
Judge the fact that the life estate of the mother and sister of
Charan ji Lal intervened after his death, will not affect the
rights of the defendant as the Act has no retrospective operation. For this view, the learned Judge relied on two· earlier
decisions, one of the Madras High Court in Krishnan C,h,ettiar v.
Manikamma/(1) and the other of the Allahabad High Court in
Kanhaiya Lal v. Mst. Champa Devi(2 ) holding that the Act
applied only to the case of a Hindu Male dying intestate on or
after February 21, 1929. In this view the learned Judge, by his
judgment dated November 18, 1958 held that the rightful heir
to the estate of Charanji Lal was the defendant and reversed the
decrees of the two Subordinate Courts and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.
The plaintiff-respondent carried the matter in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 42 of 1959 before a Division Bench of the Punjab
High Court.
The Division Bench noticed that the' decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge had been over·ruled by Full
Bench decisions of the same Courts in Lakshmi v. Anantha·
rama( 3 ) and &jpali Kunwar v. Sarju Rai("), where it had been
held that under the Hindu Law it is the death of the female heir
that opens inheritance to the reversioners who, till then possess
only an inchoate right, generally termed a spes successio11is. It
has been further held ·that the Act will apply even to cases where
fue last male-holder dies intestate before the passing of the Act
and the limited female heir is alive after the coming into force
of the Act, as the succession to the deceased male member must
be considered to open only after the passing of the Act and will
be governed by the pro,isions of the Act.
Following these decisions, the Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession holding
that 1mder the Act the plaintiff, being the sister's son of the lasb
male holder Charanji Lal, was the preferential heir.
Mr. Vohra, learned counsel for the appellant, no doubt urged
that the interpretation placed upon the Act by the Division Bench
is erroneous.
According to him the Act will apply only to cases
of Hfa1du male dying intestate after the Act came into force, i.e.,
after February 21, 1929; and, in this case as Charanji Lal died
on August 25, 1925 long before tl!e Act came into force, succession to bis estate opened on the date of the death of Charanji Lal
and on that date the defendant, in Hindu Law, was entitled to
succeed to the estate.
(I) 1.L.R. 57 Mad. 718.
(2) A.I.R. 1935 All. 203.
(>) l.L.R. [1937] Mad 948. (F.R)
(4) I.L.R. 58 All. 1041 (F. B.)
A
I I
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
,.
B
c
F,
F
·G
H
FATEH BIBI v. CHARAN DASS (Vaidialingam, J.)
959'
Mr. Bishan Narain, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, pointed out that it was rather unfortunate that the later
full Bench decisions of the Madras and Allahabad High Courts
were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge who
had followed the decisions of those Courts which had been subsequently over-ruled.
The learned Counsel also pointed out that
according to the decisions of the various High Courts, the view
taken by the Letters Patent Bench was correct.
We are of the opinion that the decision of the Letters Paten~
Bench i; correct.
No doubt, originally the view taken by some
·of the High Courts was that the Act applies only if the last male
holder dies after the coming inte force of the Act and it will have
no retwspective application to cases of Hindu males dying
intest;;:e before the date of the Act.
That view has now been
given the go-by as is seen from the later decisions to which we
shall 1efer presently.
But before we refer to those decisions.
we sh8:l quote the observations of this Court in 4 nnagouda Nathgoudu Patil v. Court of Wards(') regarding the object and scope
of the Act.
This Court observed :
"The object of the Act as stated in the preamble
is to alter the order in which certain lteirs of a Hindu
male dying intestate are entitled to succeed to his estate;
1nd section 1 (2) expressly Jays down that 'the Act applies only to persons who but for the passing of this Act
would have been subject to the Law of Mitakshara in
respect of the provisions herein enacted, and it applies
to such persons in respect only of the property of males
not held in coparcenary and not disposed of by will'.
Thus the scope of the Act is limited.
It governs sucession only to the separate property of a Hindu male who
dies intestate.
It iioes not alter the Jaw as regards the
devolution of any 'otlr.:1 kind of property owned by a
Hindu male ... : It is to be noted that the Act does
not make these four relations statutory heirs under the
Mitakshara Law un,der all circumstances and
for all
purposes: it makes them heirs only when the propositus
is a male and the property in respect to which it is
rnught to be applied is his separate property."
\
'l1!e four relations, referred to in t.1.e above extract,
are : the
son's daughter. daughter's sister and sister's son.
Under the
Mitakshara Law. in the line of heirs, the paternal uncle came
.iust after the paternal grandfather and his son
followed
him
immediately.
But, by the Act, the four relations mentioned
above have been introduced between the grandfather and the
(I) [l952J S.C.R. 208. 215.
SUPREMB COURT REPORTS
[ 1970 j 3 S.C •. ll
paternal uncle and his son.
That is, the paternal uncle and his
A
~
~
son are postponed to these four relations by the Act.
'
In the case before us we have already pointed out that
Charanji Lal was the absolute owner of the property and therefore
.there was no question of the property being· held in coparcenary
.and there is no controversy that the property was not disposed of
by will by Charanji Lal.
Therefore, prima facie the Act will
apply to the es~ate of Charanji Lal if it can be hCld •that the succes-
.sion to his estate opened only when his sister Maya Devi died on
March 25, 1950.
The question is : When did succession gpen to the estate of
<:haranji Lal. Was it on the date '?'hen-he died, i.e., AugUst 22,
1925; or was it when his sister Maya Devi died, viz., March 25,
1950?
.
.
In this connection we may refer to the decisions in Shrimati
.Shakunta/a -Devi v. Kaushalya Devi('); Raipali Kunwar v. Scuju
Rai('); Pokhan Dusadh v. Mst. Manoa('); Lakshmi v. Anantha·
rama(~) and· Bindeshari Singh . v. Baij Naih Singh('). In alf
these cases the last male holder had died before the date of the
Act and· the estate was in the possession of a life-estate holder
-either a widow or a mother who died after-the coming into force
of the Act.
It has been held in all these decisions that the
succession to the estate of the last male-holder must be considered
to open only on the termination of the life-estate and the Act will
apply _in considering the heirs of the last male holder
a~ the
termination of the life estate.
·
It is not necessary for us to refer to any of these decisions in
great detail as the matter has been considered by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in Lala Duni Chand v. M'usammat A nar Kali ( •) . The Judicial Committee has held that the
Act, which altered the order of succession of certain persons mentioned the.rein and. which came into operation on February 21,
1929 applies not oitly to the case of a Hindu male dying intestate
-on or ·after February 21, 1929 but also to the case of such a
male··,dying intestate before th{lt date if he was succeeded by a
female heir who died after that date. The Judicial Committee,
has further held that succession in such cases to the estate of the
·1ast Hindu male who died intestate did not open until the de_ath
of the life-estate holder. It has also been held that during the
life-time of the life-estate hol~r, the reversioners in Hindu Law
have no vested interest in the estate and that they have a mere
(I) I.L.R. 17 Lah. 356. ·
(3) l.L.R. 16 Part. 215 F.B.
(5) I.L.R. 13 Luck. 380.
(2) l.L.R._ 58 All. 1041 F.B.
(4) l.L.R. (1937) Mad. 948 F.B·
(6) L.R. 73 I.A. 187.
B
c
D,
F
G •
H
B
FATEH BIBI v. CHARAN DASS (Vaidialingam, J.)
961
1pes successionis.
It ·was contended before the ·Judicial Committee'that the words 'Hindu male dying intestate' was occurring
in the preamble to the Act conaotes the future tense, of a Hindu
male dying after the Act has come into force.
This contention
was rejected by the Judicial Committee, which observed as follows:
c
"In the argument before their Lordships reliance was
placed on the words 'dying intestate' in the Act as connoting the future tense, but their Lordships agree with
the view of the Lahore High Court in Shrimati Shakuntala Devi v. KaushalayQ Devi (ILR 17 Lah 356) that
the words are a mere· description of the status o.f the
deceased and have no reference, and are no: intended
to have any reference, to the time of the death of a
Hindu male. The expression merely means "in the case
of intestacy of a H\ndu male". To place this interpretation on the Act is not to give a retrospective effect
to its provisions, the material point of time being the
date when tlie succession opens, namely, the death of
the widow."
D
E
F
We are in entire agreement with the above observations of the
Judicial Committee and accordingly hold that the point of time
. 'for the applicability of the Act is when.· the succession opens,.
viz., when the life estate terminates. In consequence, it must
be further held that the questions as to who is the nearest reversionary heir, or what is the class of reversionary heirs will fall
· to be settled at the date of the expiry of the ownership for life
or lives.
The death of a Hindu female life-estate holder ·opens.
the inheritance to the reversioners and the one most nearly related
at the time to the last full owner becomes entitled to the estate.
We hold that the Act applies also to the case of a Hindu male
dying intestate before the Act came into operation and has been
succeed~ by a female heir who died after that date.
In this
case, on the fiildings recorded by all the Courts, the last female
heir died only on March 25, 1950 and, 'under the Act, the
O
plaintiff, as the sister's son of Charanji Lal, is entitled to succeed
to his estate, in preference to the defendant who is only a paternal uncle.
We have already pointed out that the paternal .uncle
is postponed to the four relations referred to in the Act, the last
of whom iS the sister's son.
-
Befote .we conclude, we may state that in this case the succession can· be considered to have opned even on November 26,
1946 when · Bishan DeVi's (the mother's) life estate terminated
and it must be held that even Maya DeVi, the sister of Charanji
..
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970) 3 S.C.R.
Lal, must be considered to have succeeded to the. property of
her brother, in her own right as a preferential heir under the
Act, though the est-ate, taken by.her under s. 3(b) will only be- a
life-estate.
No doubt these aspects have not been raised before
any of the Courts, nor even before us.
The result is that the decision of the Letters Patenn Bench of
the High Court is correct.
In consequence the appeal fails and is
·dismissed with _costs.
·
-0.C.
Appeal dismissed.
A
'
B
-