PAPPAMMAL ALIAS MUTHU KARUPPAYYEE AMMAL Vs. MEENAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which has been referred is whether the word "sister" in the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, includes a half-sister. That Act was passed because the Legislature deemed it to be expedient to alter the order in which certain heirs of a Hindu male dying intestate are entitled to succeed to his estate. Section 2 says that 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. There is a conflict of opinion on the question whether the word "sister" includes a half-sister. The Allahabad High Court in Ram Adhar V/s. Sudesra (1933) I.L.R. 55 All. 725 (F.B.), has held that the word "sister" does not include a half-sister, and this decision has been followed by this Court in Angamuthu Muthirian V/s. Sinnapennammal (1937) 47 L.W. 286, and by the Patna High Court in Mst. Daulat Kuer V/s. Bishundeo Singh I.L.R. 19 Pat. 382. On the other hand the Nagpur High Court has held that it does. The Nagpur case is Amrut V/s. Mst. Thagan I.L.R. 1938 Nag. 115 (F.B.), in which an earlier unreported case of the same Court was followed. The learned Judges who have made this reference have carefully examined all the cases in which this question has been discussed and as we are in agreement with their observations, it is not necessary to travel over all the ground again. We will state the reasons given for the two opinions and our own reasons for agreeing with the Nagpur opinion, which we consider to be the correct one.

(2.) The reasons given by the Allahabad High Court for holding that the word "sister" does not include a half-sister are that in the English language the word ordinarily means a sister of the full blood; that while Section 27 of the Indian Succession, Act states that for the purpose of succession under that Act there is no distinction between those who are related to a person by the full-blood and those who are related to him by the half-blood, Section 23 says that this provision shall not apply to Hindus; that according to the spirit of the Hindu law, as interpreted in those parts of the country where the Mitakshara law prevails, a relation of the full-blood excludes a relation of the half-blood and that if the word "sister" were held to include a half- sister, it would mean putting the half-sister in the same category; that if a. sister includes a half-sister there can be no reason to make a distinction between a uterine sister and a consanguine sister; and that the Act should be construed strictly. Stated broadly, the opinion of the Nagpur High Court is that the word "sister" is a generic term which would include not only a sister of the full-blood, but also a sister of the half-blood, and that it is contrary to the underlying ideas of the Mitakshara and of the society whose law's were there expressed to attach importance to the fact that one daughter was born of one Wife and another of another.

(3.) The Court is here called upon to interpret an Indian statute relating to the Hindu, Law of Inheritance and therefore it must have regard to the Hindu conception of the word "sister", and not to the ordinary meaning which it has in England. The Hindu law makes no distinction between sons of the same father by different wives so far as ancestral property and the self- acquired property of the father are concerned. All his sons have the same rights in the ancestral property and share equally in the father's self-acquired property should he die intestate. To the Hindu mind there is no distinction between daughters born of the same father by different wives, and like sons of the same father by different wives, daughters by different wives, rank equally so far as the father's property is concerned.