Hindu Succession Act: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Section 15
Wife’s brother not legal heir to her husband: SC
HIGHLIGHTS
SC said that a woman's brother could not claim right over property inherited by his sister from her husband.
It also said that woman's brother could not be part of his sister's matrimonial family
The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman's brother could neither be part of his sister's matrimonial family nor claim right over property inherited by his sister from her husband.
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi ordered Durga Prasad, who had claimed to be part of the family of his widowed sister to inherit tenancy rights over a prime property in Dehradun, to vacate the premises within four weeks or face contempt of court.
The property was rented out to one Hem Ram Sharma in 1940. After Sharma's death, his son Baldev inherited the tenancy rights. On Baldev's death, his wife Lalita became the tenant. Lalita died in 2013. The deceased had no children and died intestate (without a will). Her brother Durga Prasad claimed tenancy rights on the ground that he was part of the family and also a legal heir as he had been living with his sister in the rented premises and running a medical business with her. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Banumathi looked into the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to understand whether the deceased woman's brother could qualify either as a member of her family or her legal heir. "Durga Prasad is neither an 'heir' nor falls under the definition family as per Section 3 of the UP law," the bench said.
Finding that the deceased was a Hindu woman, the court decided to examine it according to provisions of Hindu Succession Act. "Language used in Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act clearly specifies that the property inherited from the husband and father-in-law would devolve upon the heirs of husband/father-in-law from whom she inherited the property," the bench said.
"Since Durga Prasad does not fall under the category of 'heir' of Lalita's husband, the tenancy of the suit premises will not devolve on him (Durga Prasad) nor can he be called an heir," Justices Misra and Banumathi said. Examining the other aspect -whether Durga Prasad formed part of the family, the bench said, "He being brother of the deceased tenant, he cannot be held to be 'family' as the inclusive list given under the Act clearly omits 'brother and sister' and the same cannot be read therein as the list has to be read and interpreted strictly." Rejecting Prasad's argument that he had been living with his sister for a long period to lay claim to the rented property, the SC said, "He being the brother of deceased Lalita had no reason to normally reside with his married sister. Be it noted, in her written statement filed in the release application, Lalita had not averred that her brother Durga Prasad was living with her and that he was taking care of her."
Pension of dead man: for wife or mother?
See Government servants: India (legal issues)
Woman's right over property given for maintenance is absolute: SC
The Times of India, Nov 24 2015
SC fillip to women's property rights
`Retains her say even after death' '
In another prowomen ruling, the Supreme Court has said that a woman's right over property , given in ieu of maintenance to be en oyed during lifetime, cannot be taken away after death and she is entitled to bequeath the assets as per her will. The SC ruling follows a recent order making it clear that a woman continues to have a right to her “streedhan“ even if separated from her hus band. The court had in a 2005 ruling granted women a coequal share in inherited property, though it had recently clarified that this comes into effect from that year onwards.
A bench of Justices M Y Eqbal and C Nagappan said a woman's right over the property given for maintenance is absolute and in-laws cannot claim it after her death. It said maintenance for wife or widow is not a mere formality to be exercised as a matter of concession but a valuable right for the woman which cannot be denied under Hindu law.
The court held that even in cases where only limited right is created in favour of a woman, this becomes absolute under the Hindu Succession Act.
“It is well settled that under the Hindu law, the husband has got a personal obligation to maintain his wife and if he is possessed of properties then his wife is entitled to a right to be maintained out of such properties.“
The court passed the order on a plea filed by a widow's inlaws challenging her decision to bequeath the properties, given for her maintenance, to athird party . The relatives had maintained that the properties were given to her to enjoy only during her lifetime and the ownership must be vested with them after her death, a plea rejected by the SC.
Holding that the widow was occupying the property in lieu of maintenance, the bench said, “whatever form a limited interest is created in her favour who was having a pre-existing right of maintenance, the same has become an absolute right by the operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.“
“A Hindu woman's right to maintenance is a personal obligation so far as the husband is concerned, and it is his duty to maintain her even if he has no property . If the husband has property then the right of the widow to maintenance becomes an equitable charge on his property and any person who succeeds to the property carries with it the legal obligation to maintain the widow,“ the court said.
Cooperative societies and married daughters
The Times of India, Apr 21 2016
Dhananjay Mahapatra
Dad can give property to married daughter over son and wife: SC
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that a man is legally entitled to nominate his married daughter to own his cooperative society flat after his death, over his wife and only son.
The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 1987, stipulate that the owner of a flat in a cooperative housing society can leave his house to any person “belonging to his family“.
Taking this rule as their defence, along with other provisions of the WB Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, Biswa Ranjan Sengupta's wife and son challenged the decision of the managing committee of Purbanchal Housing Estate, Salt Lake City , Kolkata, to transfer ownership of a flat to Indrani Wahi, Sengupta's married daughter.
Based on the objection, the deputy registrar of Cooperative Societies declined to record Indrani's name as the successor of the flat originally allotted to Sengupta, who in his last days was living with her because of “ill-treatment“ by his wife and son. Indrani's appeal was al lowed by a single judge of the high court, which directed the flat to be registered in her name. But a division bench of the HC said Indrani was a part shareholder of the property along with Sengupta's wife and son and that she could dispose of the property only with the express consent of other shareholders. Indrani appealed against this judgment in the apex court.
A bench of Justices J S Khehar and C Nagappan analysed the entire gamut of judgments on this issue and said: “There can be no doubt that where a member of a cooperative society nominates a person in consonance with provisions of the rules, on the death of such member, the cooperative society is mandated to transfer all the share or interest of such member in the name of the nominee. The rights of others on account of inheritance or succession is a subservient right. Only if a member had not exercised the right of nomination under Section 79 of the Act, then and then alone, the existing share or interest of the member would devolve by way of succession or inheritance.“
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Khehar said: “It is not necessary for us to deal with the issue whether Indrani Wahi, being a married daughter of the original member, Biswa Ranjan Sengupta, could be treated as a member of the family of the deceased because the single judge, as also the division bench of the HC, have concluded that she was a member of the family .“ The court noted that this concurrent finding was not challenged by Sengupta's only son.
Holding that the cooperative society had no option but to register Indrani as the owner of the flat, the SC bench said it would be open to Sengupta's son to pursue his case of succession or inheritance in other forum.
