LACHMAN SINGH Vs. KIRPA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') a step-son of a female dying intestate is entitled to claim a share in her property simultaneously with her son. In other words the question involved is whether the word 'sons' in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 15 of the Act includes 'step-sons' also.

(2.) The facts involved in this Special Leave Petition are thus. One Battan Singh who was also know as Badan Singh had two wives, namely, Mahan Kaur and Khem Kaur. Mahan Kaur died during his life time after giving birth to two sons Lachman Singh petitioner and Gurdas Singh from the loins of Battan Singh. Respondent No. 1 Kirpa Singh is the son of Battan Singh and Khem Kaur. Gurdas Singh died during the lifetime of eattan Singh leaving behind his widow Gurbux Kaur and his son Amarjit Singh. Battan Singh died intestate after the Act came into force. On his death his property devolved on his heirs including his second wife Khem Kaur in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter Khem Kaur died. On her death dispute arose between her son Kirpa Singh on the one side and Lachman Singh, Amarjit Singh and Gurbux Kaur on the other. Kirpa Singh claimed the entire property left behind by Khem Kaur on the ground that he was the only son of Khem Kaur. Lachman Singh, Amarjit Singh and Gurbux Kaur claimed that Kirpa Singh was entitled to only one-third share in the property of Khem Kaur, Lachman Singh was entitled to one-third share and Amarjit Singh, who was the son of Gurdas Singh, was entitled to the remaining one-third share. Both the parties relied upon clause (a) of Section 15 (1) of the Act. While Kirpa Singh contended that the word 'sons' in Section 15 ( b) (a) of the Act meant only sons born of the body of the Hindu female dying intestate the others contended that the word 'sons' in that clause included step sons also. In view of the above dispute Kirpa Singh filed a suit on the file of the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Nakodar in the District of Jalandhar inter alia for a declaration that he was entitled to the entire property belonging to Khem Kaur against Lachman Singh, Amarji Singh and Gurbux Kaur who contested the suit. The trial court vide its judgment dated February 18, 1984 decreed the suit declaring that Kripa Singh was entitled to the property belonging to Khem, Kaur. Lachman Singh preferred an appeal against the decree of the trial court in R.C.A. No. 202 of 1985 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. That appeal was dismissed on February 19, 1986. The second appeal filed by him against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, in R.S.A. No. 1773 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was also dismissed in limine on December 8, 1986. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court Lachman Singh has filed this petition for special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Section 15 of the Act, which is relevant for purposes of this case, reads thus: