1823R

IN THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF

REVATI

(PETITIONER)

(REPRESENTED BY HERSELF)

v.

HIMESH.

(RESPONDENT)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.- XXX/2022

(ORDER XXI, SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents........................................................................................................................ii

Table of authorities...................................................................................................................iii

Statement of Facts.....................................................................................................................iv

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................v

Issues for Consideration............................................................................................................vi

I. Whether the petition is maintainable in supreme court under article 136 or not?.........vi

II. Whether section 15 of the Hindu succession act, 1956 is constitutionally valid and
ultra vires as being violative of article 14 & 15 of the constitution of india or not?............vi

III. Whether the respondent has a claim over the Property acquired by Shia or not?......vi

Summary of Arguments...........................................................................................................vii

I. The petition is not maintainable in the Supreme Court under Article 136...................vii

II. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is constitutionally valid and not ultra
vires as being violative of Article 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India.............................vii

III. The respondent has a claim over the property acquired by Shia, under Section 15 of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956..........................................................................................vii

Arguments Advanced.................................................................................................................1

I. The petition is not maintainable in the Supreme Court under Article 136.....................1

II. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is constitutionally valid and not ultra
vires as being violative of Article 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India................................2

A. The Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 passes the test of Reasonable
classification and is not discriminatory..............................................................................2

III. The respondent has a claim over the property acquired by Shia, under Section 15 of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956............................................................................................4

Prayer.........................................................................................................................................5

ii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Aashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.........................................................2

Chiranjeet Lal v. UOI, 1951 AIR 41..........................................................................................2
Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0040/1960.................................3
Dhakeswari Cotton mills Limited v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65......................................................1
Lakshmi Khand sari v. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 873.............................................................2
M Jagdish Vyas v. UOI, AIR 2010 SC 1596 (1603).................................................................2
Omprakash and Ors. v. Radhacharan and Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 66...........................................4
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169............................................................................1
Sonubai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav and Ors, AIR 1983 BOM 156..................3

Statutes

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 §15...............................................................................................1

INDIAN CONST. art. 136..............................................................................................................1
INDIAN CONST. art. 14................................................................................................................2
INDIAN CONST. art. 15................................................................................................................2

iii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Shia, a Hindu female and a medical aspirant, married Sudhir under the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. Even as it was an arranged marriage, Sudhir’s family’s behavior

wasn’t very pleasant towards Shia, unlike Sudhir who was very supportive of her.

2. On, 23.10.2000, Sudhir died of a car accident. Sudhir’s family blamed Shia for the

accident and dragged her out of the matrimonial house, thereby severing all ties with

her.

3. Shia, then moved in with her parents and brother who encouraged her to continue

preparing for her medical entrances. With their support she became a successful heart

surgeon. She then went on to open her charitable hospital that sponsored medical

studies. Having no children, she decided to bequeath all of her property to some of the

charitable institutes but before she could do that, she became a victim of a flood.

4. Shia’s mother, Revati continued with the process of transferring her property which

was objected by Sudhir’s pre-deceased sister’s son, Himesh who was claiming to be

the legal heir of Shia under section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956. In this

regard, he filed a suit in court and his claim was upheld.

5. Aggrieved by this, Revati filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court claiming

that the section is prejudiced and against the ethos of the Constitution of India.

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner, Revati has come on special leave in Special Leave Petition No. XXX/2022

before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India, at Delhi under order XXI of Supreme court rules,

2013

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

v
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

I. WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE

136 OR NOT?

II. WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID AND ULTRA VIRES AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14

& 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OR NOT?
III. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAS A CLAIM OVER THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY

SHIA OR NOT?

vi
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE

136

In the given matter, there is no grave injustice committed to the Petitioner, nor there
lie any exceptional circumstances, therefore the petition is not maintainable under
Article 136.

II. SECTION 15 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

AND NOT ULTRA VIRES AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 & 15 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

The section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 deals with the succession of female
dying intestate. The devolution of the property as per this section is based on
reasonable classification and this succession scheme was made keeping in mind the
Joint Hindu family and protection of marriage as an Institution. The personal laws
governing the Hindus are derived from the old Hindu laws, customs and age-old
tradition. The section is not constitutionally invalid as it satisfies the test of Article 14
and 15.

III. THE RESPONDENT HAS A CLAIM OVER THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY SHIA, UNDER
SECTION 15 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

The Petitioner’s daughter died intestate and issueless; thus the preference will be
given to the husband’s heirs over the mother and father of the female. Therefore, the
Respondent is the legal heir of the deceased Shia, under section 15 of the Hindu
Succession Act,1956.

vii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE

136

1. The Supreme court is empowered under Article 1361 of the Constitution, to grant in
its discretion, special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination,
sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India.
2. The position of law regarding the power of Supreme court under Article 136 was
settled in Pritam Singh v. The State 2, it was held that the Supreme court “will not
grant leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that
substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.”
3. Further, in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton mills Limited v CIT3, the court observed
that the power under Article 136 is an exceptional and overriding power, and has to be
exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special and extraordinary situations.
4. In the given case, the rights of the parties were settled by the court, and the relief was
granted to the Respondent in compliance with the Section 15 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 4. There was no grave injustice done, and that is why, there is no reason to
warrant a review of the decision passed by the lower court. Additionally, there are no
special and extraordinary situation in the present case, as similar matters have been
decided by the Indian courts, and there exists plethora of precedents on the
interpretation and validity of Section 15.
5. Therefore, it is submitted that the Petition is not maintainable in the Supreme court.

1
INDIAN CONST. art. 136.
2
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
3
Dhakeswari Cotton mills Limited v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65.
4
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 §15.

1
 II. SECTION 15 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

AND NOT ULTRA VIRES AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 & 15 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

It is submitted that the Section 15 is constitutionally valid and not ultra vires as being
violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, because it passes the test of
reasonable classification and is not discriminatory and insists on preservation of Joint
Hindu family as an institution which forms the basic pattern of Hindu culture and is
based on socio-legal reality [A].

III. The Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 passes the test of Reasonable
classification and is not discriminatory

1. The right to equality is enshrined in Article 14 5 of the Constitution, and Article 15 6

prohibits discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Article 14 prescribes equality before law, but the facts remain that all provisions are
not equal by nature, attainment or circumstances and therefore, a mechanical equality
before law may result in injustice. It was observed in Chiranjeet Lal v UOI7, that the
guarantee against the denial of equal protection of law does not mean that identically
same rule of law shall be applicable to all persons in spite of differences of
circumstances.
2. Thus, the article 14 means that ‘equals should be treated alike’ 8 . Accordingly, to
apply the article 14 in a practical manner the courts have evolved that if a law is based
on reasonable classification, then it is not discriminatory 9. For a legislation to be
constitutionally valid, it must pass the test of reasonable classification, which was
formulated in Lakshmi Khand sari v State of UP10, it states that for a classification to
be reasonable,
[i] It should be based on Intelligible differentia, that is, it should be based on
some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things

5
INDIAN CONST. art. 14.
6
INDIAN CONST. art. 15.
7
Chiranjeet Lal v. UOI, 1951 AIR 41.
8
M Jagdish Vyas v. UOI, AIR 2010 SC 1596 (1603).
9
Aashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.
10
Lakshmi Khand sari v. State of UP, AIR 1981 SC 873.

2
 grouped together in the class from the others left out of it and must not be
arbitrary; and
[ii] The intelligible differentia must have a reasonable nexus with the object
sought to be achieved.
3. Additionally in Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh11, it was provided
that the if the classification is founded on intelligible differentia and has rational
relation to the object the legislative provisions is intended to achieve, then such a
challenger can hardly merit acceptance. It is only when the discrimination is based
only on consideration of the different of sex amongst the same class that the challenge
under Art. 15 could be substantiated.
4. In the case of Sonubai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav and Ors. 12, court
held that devolution as per section 15 is in recognition of initial twin objectives of
maintaining the unity involved in the family kinship and maintaining continuous
succession to property in favour of the family when occasion to succession arises.
5. The main scheme of Section 15(1) provides that when a Hindu woman dies intestate
her property has to devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16 upon her sons
and daughters and the husband, secondly upon the heirs of the husband, thirdly upon
the mother and father and fourthly upon the heirs of the father and lastly upon the
heirs of the mother Section 15(1) or 15 (2) clearly shows that when succession opens,
rules are enacted with clear intent to keep up the continuity so that the property of the
husband remains in his line while that of parents follows their line.
6. Additionally, it is submitted that there is no discrimation based on sex in Section 15,
as the scheme of the section entitles not only male heirs to get the property but female
heirs as well, and the phrase heirs of husband used, is only to indicate upon whom the
property should devolve, such terminology does not lead to the conclusion that this
has enacted preference only on the ground of sex.13
7. Therefore, both on the socio-juristic grounds, classification reasonably exists and is
not discriminatory.

11
Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0040/1960.
12
Sonubai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav and Ors, AIR 1983 BOM 156.
13
Supra note 12.

3
IV. THE RESPONDENT HAS A CLAIM OVER THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY SHIA, UNDER
SECTION 15 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

1. The Scheme of Section 15 postulates that in an event of female dying intestate, her
property would devolve firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of
any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; secondly, upon the heirs of the
husband….
2. In Omprakash & Ors v Radha Chara 14, the facts were similar to the present case, a
married Hindu female died intestate leaving the property which was her self-acquired
property. It was held that as per the present position of law, her property would
devolve in the second category i.e., to her husband's heirs. Thus, in case of the self-
acquired property of a Hindu married female dying intestate, her property devolves on
her husband's heirs. Her paternal and maternal heirs do not inherit but the distant
relations of her husband would inherit as her husband's heirs.
3. In the present case too, the Petitioner’s daughter died intestate and issueless, thus the
preference will be given to the husband’s heirs over the mother and father of the
female.
4. Therefore, the Respondent is the legal heir of Shia, under section 15 of the Hindu
Succession Act,1956.

14
Omprakash and Ors. v. Radhacharan and Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 66

4
 PRAYER

In light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it is most

humbly and respectfully prayed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that it may be pleased to-

1. Dismiss the present Petition with costs and uphold the constitutional validity of

Section 15.

2. Grant the relief to respondent and uphold his claim as a legal heir of the deceased

Shia.

And pass any such order which the Supreme Court may deem fit in the eyes of justice, equity

and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date: 22nd September, 2022.

Place: Supreme Court of India, Delhi. Counsel for the Respondent.