PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

                                                   Amar Kaur

                                                         Vs

                                                 Raman Kumari

                                       Second Appeal No. 612 of 1976

                                                 (G.C. Mital, J.)

                                                   17.01.1984

                                                  JUDGMENT

G.C. Mital, J.

1. Ram Chand was the original male-holder, who died on 6th Dec. 1946 leaving his widow Smt.
Dhanti and two daughters Shankari and Amar Kaur. On his death his agricultural land was
mutated in favor of his wife Smt. Dhanti. On 27th Nov. 1948 Smt. Dhanti gifted the entire estate
in favor of her two daughters and the mutation of gift was duly sanctioned. Both the daughters
survived the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On
4th February, 1972, Smt. Shankari died without leaving husband or a descendant. Her estate was
mutated in favor of her sister Amar Kaur. At the time of death of Shankari Kahan Chand her
husband's son, from another wife was alive, who died on. 5th Oct. 1972 leaving behind his
widow and children. His widow and children filed the present suit on Ist November, 1973 to
claim succession of the estate left by Smt. Shankari on the basis of the gift from her mother and
claimed that the inheritance to her was to be governed by Section 15(1)of the Act.

2. Smt. Amar Kaur contested the suit and pleaded that Shankari has succeeded to the estate of
her mother/father and, therefore Section 15(2) of the Act was applicable and not Section 15(1) of
the Act, inasmuch as the gift has to be considered as acceleration of succession.

3. Both the Courts below decreed the suit after recording a finding that on the basis of gift, she
became the owner of the property and since gift did not amount to acceleration of succession, it
could not be held that the property was inherited by her from her mother or father, and, therefore,
Section 15(2) of the Act was not applicable. This is second appeal by Smt. Amar Kaur.

4. It cannot be disputed that in 1946 when Ram Chand died, if the parties were governed by
customary law then the widow could succeed to widows' estate. Similarly, under the Hindu Law
widow would succeed in preference to daughters but to limited estate. Similarly, on the death of
the widow, the daughters could succeed as limited owners. Even if the gift made by Shrimati
Dhanti in favor of the two daughters is considered as acceleration of succession, Smt. Shankari
succeeded to life estate, which stood enlarged in her full ownership under Section 14(1) of the
Act. Since smaller estate merged into larger one, the lesser estate ceases to exist and a new estate
of full ownership by fiction of law came to be held for the first time by Smt. Shankari. The
estate, which she held under Section 14(1) of the Act, cannot be considered to be by virtue of
inheritance from her mother or father. In law it would be deemed that she became full owner of
this property by virtue of the Act. On these facts it is to be seen whether Section 15(1) of the Act
will apply or Section 15(2) of the Act will apply. Section 15(2) of the Act will apply only when
inheritance is to the estate left by father or mother, in the absence of which. Section 15(1) of the
Act would apply. Under Section 15(1) of the Act, the heirs of the husband have to be traced and
while doing so her husband's son Kahan Chand who was alive, on the date of her death inherited
the estate and after death of Kahan Chand, the estate was inherited by the widow and his
children, who are plaintiffs in this case.

5. Shri Malook Singh Advocate strenuously argued that in Section 15(2) of the Act, emphasis has
to be laid on the words "property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother". While
doing so, he urged that property held by Smt. Shankari was inherited by her from her father or
mother and it matters little that that inherited property stood enlarged by Section 14(1) of the Act.
As already observed Shankari had inherited a limited estate on the rule of acceleration of
succession under the gift. Before inheritance could open Section 14(1) came into force, and
because of the legal fiction she became full owner as the smallar estate had merged into larger
estate as held in Jai Singh v. Mughla1 , with the result that the larger estate has to be recognised in
law, she will be deemed to be owner of this property for the first time, on the basis of Section
14(1) of the Act. Hence the words relied upon in Section 15(2) of the Act do not advance the
case of the appellant. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merit and is
dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Cases Referred.

1(1967) 69 Pun LR 475