SAHODRA Vs. RAM BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 13 April 1937, which affirmed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Muttra in favour of the plaintiff dated 18th September 1933. The only question for decision is one of law, viz., whether the words "sister's son" in S. 2, Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, which will hereinafter be referred to as "the Act," include the son of a half-sister ? Section 2 of the Act is as follows : A son's daughter, daughter's daughter, sister and sister's son shall, in the order so specified, be entitled to rank in the order of succession next after a father's father and before a father's brother: Provided that a sister's son shall not include a son adopted after the sister's death. The facts of the case are not in dispute and need not be referred to in detail. The parties are Hindus governed by the law of the Mitakshara. The property in the suit belonged to one Krishna Murari who was the last male owner. It was claimed by Ram Babu, the plaintiff, who is Krishna Murari's father's uncle's son. His claim was resisted by Mt. Sahodra, the defendant, for herself and on behalf of her son Dhanpat. Mt. Sahodra is the half-sister of Krishna Murari being his father's daughter, by his first wife. When succession opened, these were the two claimants to the estate, viz., Ram Babu and Dhanpat. Dhanpat died during the pendency of the appeal. Apart from the Act, Ram Babu as Krishna Murari's father's uncle's son would, as a sapinda, be entitled to succeed to the estate of Krishna Murari as the nearest reversioner, in preference to Dhanpat his half-sister's son who is only a bandhu. Under the Act, however, the persons named in S.2 inherit with gotraja sapindas, and a "sister's son" coming next after a "sister" enjoys priority in succession over the father's paternal uncle's son. If Dhanpat, as the son of the half-sister of Krishna Murari was entitled under the Act to inherit the suit property, then Mt. Sahodra as his mother would be entitled to succeed him under the ordinary law.

(2.) It was urged in the Courts in India that the words "sister's son" in S.2 of the Act would include a half- sister's son and Dhanpat would therefore have a preferential claim to succeed to the estate of Krishna Murari but this contention was negatived by the Courts following the decision in 55 ALL 725.1In this appeal by the defendant, the same contention has been urged, the argument being that by the Act "sister" has been admitted as an heir under the Mitakshara law, that the term "sister" in S.2 includes a half-sister, and by parity of reasoning the words "sister's son" would include a half-sister's son. It is to be regretted that the respondent has not been represented, but Mr. Khambatta who has argued the case for the appellant with skill and ability has placed before the Board fairly and fully all the relevant facts and arguments. There is divergence of judicial opinion among Courts in India regarding the construction of S.2 of the Act. In 55 ALL 725,1the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the word 'sister' in S. 2, Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, does not include a half-sister, either consanguine or uterine.

(3.) The main grounds for the decision are, that the word "sister" in the English language ordinarily means a sister of the whole blood and that "if we hold that 'sister' in S. 2 of Act 2 of 1929 includes a half-sister, we shall be putting a sister and a half-sister in the same category" which would be against the spirit of the Mitakshara law under which a relation of the full-blood excludes a relation of the half-blood, and "shall be introducing a half-sister between the words 'sister' and 'sister's son'.... The learned Judges observed that the Act is an enabling Act which introduces certain persons as heirs who had no such place according to the ordinary interpretation of the Mitakshara law. Unless we have a clear reason to believe that the Legislature was introducing by implication a person not specifically mentioned as an heir, we have no right to give the word "sister" wider meaning than it would ordinarily bear. They also observed : If we hold that a sister includes a half-sister, then there will be no reason to make a distinction between a uterine sister and a consanguine sister .... Ordinarily it would be repugnant to the notions of Hindus to recognise a woman as sister who has not the same father as the person himself.