1757R

IN THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT DELHI

-- IN THE MATTER OF –

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (WP) NO. XXXX/2022

REVATI………….……………………….…………………..…………………. PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIA……………………………………......…………….………… RESPONDENT

(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER

XXI OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013)

--MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT—

i
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ v

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ........................................................................................... vi

I. Whether Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is valid and within the ethos of the
Constitution of India? ........................................................................................................... vi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................vii

I. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is valid and within the ethos of the
Constitution of India. ...........................................................................................................vii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 1

I. THAT SECTION 15 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS VALID AND

WITHIN THE ETHOS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA........................................... 1

A. Article 14 of the Constitution is not violated .......................................................... 2

1. Section 15 makes a reasonable classification ...................................................... 2

2. There is reasonable nexus between the object of Section 15 and the intelligible
differentia ....................................................................................................................... 3

B. Article 15 of the constitution is not violated ........................................................... 4

C. Sentiments/sympathy cannot lead to different interpretation of a statutory provision

……………………………………………………………………………………..6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................ 7

ii
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bhagat Ram (Dead) v. Teja Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 86. ............................................................... 3

Chennamma v. Dyana Setty, AIR 1953 MYSORE 136 ............................................................ 2
Dhanistha Kalita v. Ramakanta Kalita, AIR 2003 Gau 92. ....................................................... 3
G. Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1961) 2 SCR 931. ................................. 3
Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 77 ............................................. 6
Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. United Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2007
SC 1584….............................................................................................................................. 6
M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and Ors. v. Hari Om Enterprises and Anr, 2008 (9) SCALE 241. ................ 6
Omprakash and Others v. Radhacharan and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 66. .................................. 6
Smt. Anjali Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors. AIR 1952 Cal 825 ........................................ 5
Sonubhai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav, AIR 1983 Bom 156. .............................. 4
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1511 ........................................... 6
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75. .................................................. 2
Subha B. Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 210 ......................................... 6

STATUTES

HSA, 1956, § 15(1). ................................................................................................................... 1

HSA, 1956, Pmbl. ...................................................................................................................... 3
Indian Constitution, 1950, Art. 14 ............................................................................................. 2
Indian Constitution, 1950, Art. 15. ............................................................................................ 4
The Hindu Succession Act, ACT NO. 30 OF 1956, Ministry of Law and Justice, June 17, 1956.
................................................................................................................................................ 1

Treatises

M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1221 (8d ed. 2018). ..................................... 2

iii
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that this Honourable Supreme Court of
India has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the matter filled under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India read with Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

All of which is urged in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respectfully.

iv
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Shia, a Hindu female got married to Sudhir under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Unfortunately, Sudhir died in a car accident on 23.10.2000. Shia was blamed for the death for
the accident and dragged out of the matrimonial house while also severing ties with her.

Thereafter, she started living with her parents who financially and emotionally supported her
in the medical examination preparations which she passed with flying colours. She became one
of the leading heart surgeons in the country.

She never married or adopted a child and unfortunately, before she could complete her will,
she became a victim of flood and died intestate.

Shia's mother, Revati, wanted to transfer the properties for their daughter, but Sudhir's sister's
son, Himesh, objected to the transfer as he contended to be the legal heir of Shia under section
15 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956. He filed a suit in this regard and the court gave an order
in his favour.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the court, Shia’s mother approached the Supreme Court
under its jurisdiction of special leave petition.

Hence the present Special Leave Petition

v
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

I. WHETHER SECTION 15 OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS VALID AND

WITHIN THE ETHOS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

vi
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. SECTION 15 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS VALID AND

WITHIN THE ETHOS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

In the case of Himesh v. Revati (the case out of which the present SLP has arised), the property
of Shia was granted to Sudhir’s pre-deceased sister’s son, Himesh as the legal heir under
Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and this factual matrix that has led to this
special leave petition (“SLP”) being a hard case and indeed calls for a proper justification
regarding the constitutional validity of Section 15 of the HSA, 1956. Section 15(1) of the act
that governs self-acquired property of married Hindu women and the constitutional validity of
the same shall be uphold as it does not violate of Article 14 or Article 15 of the Constitution of
India and additionally, sentiments/sympathy cannot lead to different interpretation of a
statutory provision.

vii
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT SECTION 15 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS VALID

AND WITHIN THE ETHOS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1. In the case of Himesh v. Revati (the case out of which the present SLP has arised), the
property of Shia was granted to Sudhir’s pre-deceased sister’s son, Himesh as the legal
heir under Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA, 1956”).1 However,
the facts of the case were such which may generally perplex anyone.
2. Therefore, this factual matrix that has led to this special leave petition (“SLP”) being a
hard case and indeed calls for a proper justification regarding the constitutional validity
of Section 15 of the HSA, 1956.
3. Section 15 talks about the General Rules of Succession in case of Female Hindus and
Section 15 (1) ranks the entitled persons to the intestate property in the order of
preference which is as follows:2
i) Firstly, sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or
daughter) and the husband.
ii) Secondly, the heirs of the husband,
iii) Thirdly, the mother and father,
iv) Fourthly, the heirs of the father,
v) Lastly, the heirs of the mother
4. Clearly, Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 lays down the ordinary rule of succession. Clause
(a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 15 providing for a non-obstante clause, however,
carves out an exception viz when the property is devolved upon the deceased from her
parents' side, on her death the same would relate back to her parents' family and not to
her husband's family. Similarly, in a case where she had inherited some property from
her husband or from her husband's family, on her death the same would revive to her
husband's family and not to her own heirs.
5. However, the law is silent with regard to self- acquired property of a woman but Sub-
section (1) of Section 15 apart from the exceptions specified in sub-section (2) thereof
does not make any distinction between a self-acquired property and the property which
she had inherited. It refers to a property which has vested in the deceased absolutely or

1
The Hindu Succession Act, ACT NO. 30 OF 1956, Ministry of Law and Justice, June 17, 1956.
2
HSA, 1956, § 15(1).

1
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

which is her own. The self-acquired property of a female would be her absolute property
and not the property which she had inherited from her parents.
6. Hence, it is clear that it is Section 15(1) of the act that governs self-acquired property
of married Hindu women and the constitutional validity of the same shall be uphold by
the respondents by proving that the same does not violate of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India [A], Article 15 of the Constitution of India [B], and lastly
Sentiments/sympathy cannot lead to different interpretation of a statutory provision
[C].

A. ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT VIOLATED3

7. The test to determine whether any provision is violative of Article 14 is two pronged,
first to show reasonable classification and secondly, to show nexus between the object
and intellegible differentia.4
8. Therefore, the same shall be proved by help of two further sub-arguments that Section
15 makes reasonable classification [1] and that the same has nexus between the object
sought and intelligible differentia [2].

1. Section 15 makes a reasonable classification

9. Article 14 does not allow class legislation but allows reasonable classification of
persons for achieving a specific end is permissible. For this the classification must be
based on some substantial and evident difference.5
10. With respect to gender equality issues pertaining to Section 8 and Section 15, the
reference to case of Chennamma Vs. Dyana Setty,6 must be made. The law relating to
maintenance was different for the Hindu women governed by Mitakshara system and
the women governed by other Hindu system and it was held in this case that aspect of
discrimination is outside the purview of all personal laws because all communities in
India are governed differently by their respective personal laws does not mean that
anything relating to personal laws can be legitimately discriminatory between sexes as
much as between castes and religions.

3
Indian Constitution, 1950, Art. 14.
4
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
5
M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1221 (8d ed. 2018).
6
Chennamma v. Dyana Setty, AIR 1953 MYSORE 136.

2
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

11. It was held in Bhagat Ram (Dead) vs. Teja Singh, 7 it was held that the intent of the
Legislature is clear that the property, if originally belonged to the parents of the
deceased female, should go to the legal heirs of the father. So also, under clause (b) of
sub-section (2) of section 15, the property inherited by a female Hindu from her
husband or her father-in-law, shall also under similar circumstances, devolve upon the
heirs of the husband. It is the source from which the property was inherited by the
female, which is more important for the purpose of devolution of her property.
12. Further in Dhanistha Kalita v. Ramakanta Kalita,8 it was reiterated that the object of
section 15(2) is to ensure that the property left by a Hindu female does not lose the real
source from where the deceased female had inherited the property.
13. The personal laws of other religions are different and inapplicable whereas the whole
purpose of the HSA, 1956 was to amend and codify the law relating to intestate
succession among Hindus and section 15 has been drafted keeping in mind the same
and to fulfil the requisite personal laws obligations, there exists reasonable
classification.9

Therefore, there is a reasonable classification under Section 15.

2. There is reasonable nexus between the object of Section 15 and the

intelligible differentia

14. If the classification is founded on intelligible differentia and has rational relation to the
object the legislative provision is intended to achieve, then such a challenge does not
hold ground.
15. Also, if the person of groups is rationally classified and such classified bears the
testimony of long-standing position of the personal law, then surely law can reach them
differently and such different treatment would not result in discrimination.10
16. For this, it is necessary to understand that institutional recognition of marriage was
understood as bringing male and female together in one unity. That generated the basic
dynamics of the family: and property relations and entitlement thereto evolved out of
the obvious necessity of sustaining the same. The rules of succession and inheritable
that were thus made applicable when the marriage of the woman was in an approved

7
Bhagat Ram (Dead) v. Teja Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 86.
8
Dhanistha Kalita v. Ramakanta Kalita, AIR 2003 Gau 92.
9
HSA, 1956, Pmbl.
10
G. Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1961) 2 SCR 931.

3
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

form, were based on the concept that the valid marriage results in unity of the spouses,
that is, wife and husband together formed one union.11
17. In recognition of that position when succession opened to wife's property the class
known as heirs of the husband when no other immediate heirs were available, was
permitted to succeed. That was the logical result of the initial unity, in which the
husband and wife came to be inter-woven by the tie of marriage. Recognition and
reference to the heirs of the husband was just a logical necessary step to continue that
unity in which the female had merged by marriage and was an integral part of such a
family. If the property accrued to her from that family. the rule discernible was that it
should remain in succession in that family.
18. The provisions like section 15(1) or 15 (2) clearly show that when rules with respect to
succession of Hindu women are enacted, there exists clear intent to keep up the
continuity so that the property remains in the same family, both on the socio-juristic
grounds, classification reasonably exists and is continued. Therefore, the nexus
between the objective of Section 15 which is devolution of property as per the tradition,
cultural ties and intellegible differentia by creating a separate class of women, i.e., only
married Hindu women is established.

Therefore, there is indeed a reasonable nexus between the object sought and the intelligible
differentia.

Therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

B. ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT VIOLATED12

19. The distinction between the sexes or the equality between the sexes under the aforesaid
legislation was seen in terms of Article 15 of the Constitution which runs thus:

“15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
- (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

20. Article 15(1) speaks of discrimination "only" on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them but if the legislature has discriminated on any other factor,

11
Sonubhai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav, AIR 1983 Bom 156.
12
Indian Constitution, 1950, Art. 15.

4
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

it would not tantamount to discrimination. It was observed that they were good grounds
for the difference in the legal position.
21. In the case of Smt. Anjali Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.,13 the Calcutta High
Court mentioned that soon after the framing of the constitution, the concept of the
expression "only" in Article 15(1) came to be considered and explained alongside the
expression "discrimination". It was held that what is forbidden in the article is
discrimination solely on all or any of the grounds mentioned in the Article. If the
discrimination was based on one or more of these grounds and also on other
grounds would not be hit by Article 15(1).14
22. This judgment is the also most apt for determining whether the mere difference in the
rules of succession between male and female Hindus would tantamount to such
discrimination as is frowned upon by the Constitution. The discrimination is sought to
be made because of a reason or a justification. The reason may be individous or because
of certain characteristics which take resort to the umbrella of culture, tradition, ties or
the like.
23. It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that both male and an unmarried
Hindu female belongs to but one family. However, a married female belongs to her
parental family and later to her marital family upon marriage. Consequently, in case of
married females the maintenance and strengthening of ties would apply equally to her
parental family and her marital family.
24. Therefore, evidently the distinction between the rules of succession for Hindu males &
females under Section 8 and Section 15 respectively are not plainly on the ground of
sex alone but based upon the ground of “family ties” as the primary factor.
25. The scheme used under Section 15 itself throws light upon the principles on the basis
of which choice and arrangement of different classes of heirs is made, namely closer
blood relation is preferred to the distant one, having reference to the family where
succession opens.
26. Hence, it is hard to find any discrimination only on the ground of sex in the provisions
of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Therefore, there is no violation of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

13
Smt. Anjali Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors. AIR 1952 Cal 825.
14
Id, at ¶ 16.

5
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

C. SENTIMENTS/SYMPATHY CANNOT LEAD TO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF A

STATUTORY PROVISION

27. The Supreme court of India, in Omprakash and Others v. Radhacharan and Others15,
the facts of which are similar to the case at hand, held that only because a case appears
to be hard would not lead us to invoke different interpretation of a statutory provision
which is otherwise impermissible. It is now a well settled principle of law that sentiment
or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties
which are otherwise clear and unambiguous.
28. Further, in M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and Ors. vs. Hari Om Enterprises and Anr,16 the Court
held that no order should be passed only on sympathy or sentiment.
29. Also, in the cases of Subha B. Nair & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors.,17 and Ganga
Devi vs. District Judge, Nainital & Ors.,18 the court upheld the same principle that no
determination of a question can take place only on the basis of sympathy or sentiment.
30. The above cases clearly point out a very necessary aspect that even though there might
be cases whose factual situation be morally incorrect but that doesn’t grant the court to
deter from the legislative intent and rules of interpretation and come to a favourable
interpretation to suit that case. Interpretation cannot be case to case basis, it has to be
done uniformly.
31. Lastly, it is an established principle that there is a presumption of constitutionality
unless unconstitutionality is clearly established.19
32. Hence, in the present situation, Shia was a female Hindu dying intestate, and issueless,
as a result all her property which is in the nature of self-acquired property shall be
devolved in accordance to Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 i.e., upon
the heirs of her husband.

The above arguments clearly showcase that Section 15 is indeed not prejudice to the
constitutional values and is well within the ethos of the Constitution of India.

15
Omprakash and Others v. Radhacharan and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 66.
16
M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and Ors. v. Hari Om Enterprises and Anr, 2008 (9) SCALE 241.
17
Subha B. Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 210.
18
Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770
19
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1511; Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. v.
M/s. United Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1584.

6
 Memorial on Behalf of The Respondent

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited,
it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that it
may be pleased to:

a. Dismiss this Special Leave Petition.

b. Upheld the Constitutional Validity of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

And/Or

And pass any other order in favour of respondent that it may deem fit in the ends of
justice and good conscience.

Date: 22nd September, 2022 Counsel No. 1757R

Place: Delhi, India (Counsel for Respondent)