FAMILY LAW, 2022

Bhagat Ram V. Teja Singh

Judicial Bench - Hon. U.C.Banerjee, J. and K.G. Balakrishna J.

Lavanya Kohli

BA LLB (A)

20010768

20jgls-lkohli@jgu.edu.in

[1]
FAMILY LAW, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENT
Table of cases.............................................................................................................................3
Facts...........................................................................................................................................4
Issue............................................................................................................................................5
Relevant Observation.................................................................................................................5
Judgement..................................................................................................................................6
Critical Analysis of the Judgement............................................................................................7
Socio Legal Analysis..................................................................................................................8
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................10

[2]
FAMILY LAW, 2022

TABLE OF CASES

S. No. CASE TITLE CITATION Pg No.

1. Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh AIR 2002 SC 1 4-8

2. Amar Kaur v. Raman Kumari and Ors (1984) MANU/PH/0226/1985 5

(1978) MANU/SC/0403/1978.
3. Bajya v. Smt. Gopikabai and Another 5

(1991) MANU/SC/0737/1991.
4. The State of Punjab vs. Balwant Singh and Ors. 5

5. Om Prakash v. Radha Charan (2009)15 SCC 66. 7

[3]
FAMILY LAW, 2022

FACTS

The facts in the case of Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh,1 are as follows-

Kehar Singh was the owner of land measuring 280 kanals and 18 marlas in the village of
Antowali (now in Pakistan). He died before partition, and his widow, Smt. Kipro succeeded
as the life owner of the property. However, after partition, Smt. Kipro migrated to India with
her two daughters, namely Smt. Shanti and Smt. Indro. In lieu of property left-back in
Pakistan, they were allotted an equal amount of land in Nara village, Hoshiarpur (Punjab,
India).

Smt. Kipro died on 25th December 1951; after her death, both her daughters inherited an
equal share of land as life owners. However, after the enactment of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956, they both thereof became full owners of the property as per Section 14 of the act.
Smt. Shanti died in 1960, and her share of land was mutated in the name of her sister (Smt.
Indro) as Smt. Shanti had no living husband or children.

Shri Bhagat Ram (defendant-appellant) had entered into an agreement with Smt. Indro for
the sale of the suit land, which was decreed in his favour. Shri Teja Singh, the (plaintiff-
respondent) brother of the pre-deceased husband of Smt. Shanti claimed that under Section
15 (1) (b) of the Act, Smt. Shanti's half share in the suit land belonged to him. The appellant
argued that, given the facts and circumstances, the provisions of Section 15 (2) should apply
and not of sub-Section (1).

The case was heard before the Trial as well as the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
wherein it was held that Smt. Shanti acquired full ownership of her share in the suit land, and
hence the case was ruled under Section 15(1) of the act, and the appeal was dismissed.
However, the appellant thereafter appealed by special leave before the Supreme Court.

1
AIR 2002 SC 1

[4]
FAMILY LAW, 2022

ISSUE

This case deals with 2 main issues – 

Firstly, if the property was acquired by a female before the commencement of the Hindu
Succession Act to which now, she has full ownership by virtue of section 14 holds the
property in its entirety; is subject to succession under section 15 subsection (1) or not?

Secondly, the property inherited by a female Hindu from her parent(s) before the
commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, would devolve upon the heirs of her father as
per section 15(2) on her death despite section 14 or not?

RELEVANT OBSERVATION

 The court observed and took a clear stand that female Hindus had limited rights
initially and later gained the full right of the land would not alter the rules of
succession as laid down in Section 15 subsection (2). 

 The court while delivering its judgement made references to several other cases such
as – Bajya v. Smt. Gopikabai and Another2 wherein it was held that if a female died
interstate without having any children and had received that property from her
husband the property shall devolve upon the legal heirs of her husband. The court
further made reverence to the decision in the case of The State of Punjab vs. Balwant
Singh and Ors.3 and made comments on the contradictory position of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the case of Amar Kaur v. Raman Kumari and Ors.4

 It was noted that the source from which one inherits the property is of prime
importance and shall govern the situation. If this is not obeyed, then the lack of strict
2
Bajya vs. Gopikabai and Ors., (1978) MANU/SC/0403/1978.
3
State of Punjab vs. Balwant Singh and Ors., (1991) MANU/SC/0737/1991.
4
Amar Kaur vs. Raman Kumari and Ors., (1984) MANU/PH/0226/1985.

[5]
FAMILY LAW, 2022

implementation under Section 15 (2) would lead to people who are not even remotely
related to the original owner acquiring the right to inherit that property which would
defeat the intent behind the enactment of a special pattern of succession.

JUDGEMENT

The respondent contended that when Smt. Shanti inherited the property, she only had limited
rights over the property but gained full ownership of the property by virtue of the enactment
of Section 14 Hindu Succession Act,1956. Therefore, the suit land should devolve as per the
rules laid down under Section 15(1). Further, provisions, as mentioned under Section 15(2),
shall be applicable only in the cases wherein property has been inherited after the
commencement of the act.

However, in response to this, the court held that in order to enact Section 15(2), it is not
necessary that the inheritance of property should have taken place after the commencement of
this act. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan stated that - “We do not think that the fact that a female
Hindu originally had a limited right and later, acquired the full right.... would alter the
rules of succession given in sub-Section 2 of Section 15”.5

Further, the court held that the legislature's intent was clear while framing Section 15. It is
important to note that the source of inheritance is of prime importance in the devolution of
property of a female dying intestate.

Since herein, the property was inherited from the parents; it shall devolve upon the legal heir
of the father and not the legal heir of the husband. The only surviving legal heir of Kehar
Singh was his daughter Indro. The latter shall now inherit the property as the sole surviving
owner as per the rules prescribed under Section 15, subsection (2)(a) of the Hindu Succession
Act,1956.

5
Ibid.

[6]
FAMILY LAW, 2022

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

The judgement laid down in the case of Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh6 is one of the significant
judgements when it comes to female Hindus dying intestate. This case pretty much clears the
air around the confusion regarding the succession of property when it comes to a female. The
core of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 lies in the origin of the property, i.e.
from where does the female holder get the property. It has been explicitly stated that if the
female receives the property through her paternal side, then after her demise, her children,
children of her predeceased children, will have the first right over the property. In case she
dies without any issues, then the property shall revert back to the heirs of her father and not
her husband.

However, when we talk about the self-acquired property of a female dying interstate, there
has been a large amount of controversy as the Hindu Succession Act, in its strict
interpretation, stands silent on the issue. It is important to note that a self-acquired property
cannot be traced back to the paternal family or the family of her in-laws. Supreme court, in
the case of Om Prakash v. Radha Charan7 held that “Self-acquired properties of Hindu
female dying intestate shall devolve on legal heirs of her pre-deceased husband as per Section
15 (1) of the Act and not as per Section 15(2).”  This judgement made it crystal clear that
exceptions contained in Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 only apply when a
female inherits property through her paternal home (father and mother) upon the heirs of
father, and when inherited through husband or father-in-law shall devolve upon the heirs of
husband in absence of any children or children of predeceased daughter or son. Thus,
the property reverts back to the family of origin (of property) on the demise of the
female interstate.

In the case if Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh8, the property that devolved upon the interstate was
inherited from the mother, which implies that this property had its origin in the paternal
family. On the death of the deceased Santi, the inherited property should go to her sister, who
6
Ibid.
7
(2009)15 SCC 66.
8
Ibid.

[7]
FAMILY LAW, 2022

was alive and not to the deceased husband’s heir (husband’s brother). However, the High
Court and the Trial court gave a very flawed judgment, relying on Section 15(1)(b) by giving
the property to the brother of the husband. However, this decision was later revised by the
Supreme Court, which correctly interpreted Section 15(2) clause (a) of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 and reverted the property to the sister of the deceased, setting a powerful precedent
highlighting the complex nature of laws governing female dying interstate as well as helped
in a better interpretation of Section 14 and 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

However, the most significant setback, in this case, was not the flawed judgement but rather
the time that the court took to give decision in this case. It took nearly 40 years to release its
verdict; it is evident that the original appellant and the respondent were dead by the time the
judgment was released and were represented by their legal representatives. It is well said that
justice delayed is justice denied, the judiciary needs to remember that the essence of any
judicial system is its ability to rectify itself and render correct judgments quickly. The Indian
judiciary has an enormous case backlog, and this case is another illustration of the same.

SOCIO LEGAL ANALYSIS

It has never been a good time to be a woman. Enslaved at home, denied rights in society, and
subjected to gender prejudice, women have faced the brunt of being the weaker sex all
throughout history. They have always been seen as inferior to their male counterparts and
placed on a lesser pedestal. Women have long been denied equal property rights due to
patriarchal beliefs that perpetuate hegemonic masculine ideals. Things took a positive turn
with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which bestowed on women absolute
rights to ownership of property. This act laid down a new succession pattern under Section
15(2). The provision intended to deter and bar those who weren't even distantly related to the
owner from inheriting it. However this section remained shrouded in ambiguity until the
historic decision by Supreme Court in the landmark case of Bhagat Ram vs Teja Singh9
wherein it was held that any property inherited by a female Hindu, from her father or mother,
shall devolve, in the absence of a son or daughter, upon the heirs of the father. The concern
that this judgement raises is that since such property should descend exclusively to the heirs

9
Ibid.

[8]
FAMILY LAW, 2022

of the father and not to the biological relatives of the mother, it deprives the maternal lineage
of their entitlement to such property. This is a glaring example of deep-rooted patriarchy not
only in our society but also in our legal system. Such examples highlight the need for gender
neutral legislations. The Law Commission of India has endorsed the concept of gender-
neutral law in its 174th report10 as such changes will ultimately help create an environment
conducive to the upliftment of women. It is high time women are considered as an equal to
men as society would progress only when women progress.

10
174th Law Commission Report, 2000.

[9]
FAMILY LAW, 2022

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERRED:

 Paras Diwan, “MODERN HINDU LAW”, 6th ed. 2001, Allahabad Law Agency,
Allahabad
 Ranbir Singh and Vijender Kumar, (eds.), “MATERIALS AND CASES ON
FAMILY LAW-II”, 1st ed. 2006, (unpublished), NALSAR Law University,
Hyderabad.
 Vijender Kumar and Ranganath Mishra, (rev.), Mayne, “HINDU LAW AND
USAGE”, 19th ed.2008, Bharat Law House, New Delhi.
 Werner Manski, “HINDU LAW, BEYOND TRADITION AND MODERNITY”, 1st
ed. 2003, Published by Manzas Khan at oxford University Press in Delhi

WEBSITES REFERRED:

 Indian Code: www.indiacode.nic.in

 Manupatra: http://www.manupatra.com

STATUTES

 The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956).

REPORTS

 174th Law Commission Report, 2000.

[10]