LAKSHMIPRIYA MAITY Vs. PARASURAM MAITY & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the Shastric Hindu Law of Inheritance, whether Mitakashara or Dayabhaga, the property of sonless Hindu male dying interest was to devolve on his widow and then on his daughter if any. That was the text in Vishna -Samhita - "Aputrasya Dhanam Pathnyabhigami, Tadabhabe Duhitrigami" the wealth of a sonless person goes to the wife, in her default, goes to the daughter". The more celebrated text of Yahnavalkya is "Patni Duhitaraschaiba Pitarau Bhratarastatha Aputrasya Sar -bavamesu Ayam Bidhi" the wife, the daughter, both parents, brothers etc. are the heirs of a person dying sonless and on failure of first among these, the next in order succeeds . The widow, the daughter and other female heirs were however to acquire life -estates only in the properties left by the deceased. Even the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, did not bring about any change is the law as aforesaid in respect of inheritance to properties left by a sonless Hindu male. But it however ameliorated the position of the widow by providing that not only where the deceased died without a son, but even when there was a son, the widow "shall be entitled to the same share as a son". The son, therefore, could no longer exclude widow from inheritance, but continued to exclude the daughters, until the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whereunder all of them, the son, the daughter and the widow, now inherit in equal shares.

(2.) In the case at hand, the deceased who was sonless, died in 1940s leaving a widow and a daughter. As a result, even without the aid of the provisions of the Act of 1937, the widow inherited the property, though only in life -estate. The widow died in December, 1955 before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with effect from June, 1956. If she could die thereafter, she would not have remained a mere holder of life -estate, but would have become a full owner of the properties inherited from her husband and on her death, the daughter would have inherited the same as full owner. But even then, as already indicated, under the law as it stood before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, on the death of the widow even in 1955, the daughter would have inherited the property as the heir of her deceased father and the next reversioner.

(3.) That being the position, we would have agreed with Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the learned Counsel for the Review -petitioner, that the filing in the impugned judgment sought to be reviewed to the effect that the widow having died in December, 1955, the daughter would not succeed as an heir and would acquire no interest in the property inherited by the widow is not only erroneous, but as an error apparent on the face of the record.