BUDHAN Vs. SHAMO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sawan Singh was the original owner of the land in dispute. He married Smt. Daya Kaur. On the death of Sawan Singh, Smt. Daya Kaur inherited the property. On the death of Smt. Daya Kaur, the property was mutated half in the name of Smt. Budhan plaintiff, and half in the name of Smt. Shamo defendant on the ground of they being the daughters of Smt. Daya Kaur. Smt. Budhan filed the suit that Smt. Shamo defendant was not the daughter of Sawan Singh and Smt. Daya Kaur and, therefore, she was not entitled to inherit half of they property. The claim was controverted by Smt. Shamo defendant and they pleaded that she was the daughter of Smt. Daya Kaur and, therefore, she was entitled to half share in the property. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(2.) The learned Courts below on appreciating the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that Smt. Shamo defendant had been proved to be the daughter of Smt. Daya Kaur from the loins of her second husband Ghatia. This finding of fact has not been assailed before me by Shri Mehra, the learned counsel for the appellant, and he has argued the appeal taking this finding of fact to be final. His only contention is that since the property was inherited by Smt. Daya Kaur from her previous husband Sawan Singh, therefore, Smt. Shamo being the daughter of Smt. Daya Kaur from the loins of her second husband Ghatia, is not entitled to the property. This contention is without any merit. According to the provisions of Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , Smt. Shamo being the daughter of Smt. Daya Kaur is entitled to inherit the property as has been rightly mutated in her favour. The provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, make no distinction between the daughters of a previous husband or of a subsequent husband. The sole test to be applied is whether Smt. Shamo is the daughter of Smt. Daya Kaur deceased or not. That finding of fact has not been assailed before me. It will not make any difference whether Smt. Daya Kaur inherited the property from her previous husband Sawan Singh. On the death of Smt. Daya Kaur succession had opened to her property and the provisions of Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act do cover the case.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, the finding of the courts below on issue No. 1 is affirmed. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.