Hindu Succession Act | Mother Can Claim Share In Deceased Son's Ancestral Property Despite Her Husband's Claim: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that a mother of a pre-deceased son becomes a Class-I heir in the son’s share in the ancestral and joint family properties, even if her husband is alive and can claim a share in the property under the Hindu Succession Act.

Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by TN Susheelamma who expired during the pendency of the proceedings and reversed the first appellate court order which held that the mother of the pre-deceased son—Santhosh, is not entitled to any share.

“Once impleaded as party and she is also a Class-I heir of the deceased Santhosh, ought not to have answered the same as negative and she is also a necessary party to the said suit, since the deceased passed away leaving behind the mother, wife and son and they are the Class-I heirs of the deceased Hindu male member of the joint family and the original appellant herein is also entitled for a share in the property left by the deceased Santhosh as Class-I heir and the very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous.”

The appellant had approached the Court arguing that the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were highly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and both the Courts had failed to consider the fact that respondents 1 and 2, (wife and son of Santhosh) who are seeking the relief of partition, ought to have directed to make the appellant as a party to the proceedings as she is the mother of the deceased shareholder and that she is a necessary party and that she is also entitled to a share in the share of deceased Santhosh.

The appeal was opposed by the respondents saying that when the mother's share was not allotted and before allotment of her share she passed away, the question of granting any share in favour of the transposed appellant (daughter of deceased Susheelamma) and other her legal heirs does not arise and they are not entitled to any share in the share of the mother, since she passed away before the allotment of her share and hence it does not require any modification of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

It raised two substantial questions of law: first, whether the first appellate court erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant was a Class-I heir of the deceased Santhosh and entitled to claim a share alongside the plaintiffs; second, whether the first appellate court erred in not allotting an appropriate share to the appellant. These questions were interrelated.

After a detailed examination of the facts and legal provisions, the High Court concluded that the mother was indeed a Class-I heir of the deceased Santhosh and was entitled to a share in the properties. However, it was noted that the appellant had passed away during the appeal, leaving behind her husband, daughter, and the son of the predeceased son. Accordingly, the Court applied the Hindu Succession Act, invoking Section 15, which outlines the rules of succession for female Hindus.

Noting that the First Appellate Court mainly concentrated that the appellants have not explained how the mother became co-parcener in the present suit in the family of parties to the suit when defendant No.1 (her husband) was alive.

“The First Appellate Court lost sight of the fact that her son Santhosh passed away prior to filing of the suit and as a result she became Class-I heir, but the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that during the lifetime of defendant No.1, in the suit for partition, she cannot be considered as necessary party.”

It also held that the First Appellate Court had failed to take note of the fact that she became a Class-I heir on account of the death of her son.

"No doubt her husband is alive, but as soon as her son passed away, she became the Class-I heir of the deceased son Santhosh and the same was not considered by the Trial Court and erroneously proceeded that mother cannot be considered as coparcener and she cannot claim any independent share in the ancestral and joint family properties.”

The court also observed that the original appellant had not claimed any independent share in the ancestral and joint family properties as coparcener and she had claimed the share out of the share of her son Santhosh who passed away leaving behind his mother, the original appellant.

“Hence, the very approach of the First Appellate Court that the original appellant in this appeal is not a necessary party is erroneous and also erroneously comes to the conclusion that she is not entitled for share.”

Thus, the Court has to reverse the said finding in coming to the conclusion that she (Appellant) is a Class-I heir and she is also entitled for a share in the property left by her son being the Class-I heir along with wife of the deceased and also the son of the deceased.”

Rejecting the contention of the respondents that when the share of the original appellant was not allotted and she passed away during the pendency of this second appeal, the question of allotting any share in favour of the legal heirs left behind her does not arise and there was no requirement of modifying the share as granted by the trial court order.

“When she (Appellant) passed away during the pendency of this appeal, this Court has to invoke Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 i.e. General Rules of succession in the case of female Hindus: (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16,- firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband.”

Under Section 15, the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves upon her sons, daughters, and husband. Accordingly, it modified the trial court order.

The husband was entitled to a 10/27 share, defendant No. 2 was also entitled to 10/27, the son of the predeceased son was entitled to 4/27, and the wife of the deceased was entitled to 3/27.

The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree of the lower courts accordingly.

Appearance: Advocate A. Madhusudhana Rao for Appellant.

Advocate Vinod Gowda FOR C/R1 AND R2.

Advocate G. Chandrashekharaiah for R3.

Advocate S.D.N.PRASAD, FOR R4.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 399

Case Title: T N Susheelamma & ANR AND Chirag Raghavendra & Others

Case No: R.S.A. NO.1090/2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order