KOMALAVALLI AMMAL Vs. T A S KRISHNAMACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before me. They are daughters of one Srini-vasachariar through his second wife. Srini-vasachariar had another daughter by name Amirthammal through his first wife. By a will dated 27-4-1945 marked as Ex. A-1 Srini-vasachariar bequeathed his properties in favour of his three daughters to be taken by them equally. After his death, the daughters entered into a partition on 25-9-1950 under a registered partition deed marked as Ex A-2. Amirthammal died issueless on 20-7-1974. The plaintiffs claiming to be heirs of Amirthammal instituted the suit out of which, this second appeal arises. The first defendant is the son of Amirthammal's husband's brother. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs are not the heirs of Amirthammal. The courts below accepted the contention of the defendantsand dismissed the suit.

(2.) S. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act is the relevant provision. In so far as it is relevant the section reads as follows: ?15. (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in S. 16? (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-S(1),? (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-S.(1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and?

(3.) A division bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court adopted the same reasoning in B Kaneswararao v. K. Vasudevarao 2 . and held that the term ?inherited? occurring in S. 15(2) in the context means ?to receive property as heir? or ?succession by descent? The division bench observed that the word had a restricted meaning and did not include acquisition of property by device under a will. The judgment of Justice Natesan was referred to by the division bench. The judgment of Gujarat High Court in Jayantilal v. Chhanalal 3 , was also referred to by the division bench.