1978 (4) TMI 233 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 151 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954.
2. Interpretation of "personal law" in Section 151 of the Code.
3. Determination of heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 151 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954:
The appellants contended that Section 151 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, was a law for the devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings. They argued that Bhumiswamis and Bhumidharis were tenure-holders who could be included in the term "tenants," thus invoking Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to save Section 151 of the Code. The High Court, however, held that Bhumiswami and Bhumidhari rights are not tenancy rights and that Section 151 of the Code deals with the devolution of interest of a tenure-holder, not tenancy rights.

2. Interpretation of "personal law" in Section 151 of the Code:
The appellants argued that the expression "personal law" in Section 151 of the Code referred to Hindu law as it existed before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The High Court, however, interpreted "personal law" to mean Hindu law as amended by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, prevailing at the time of the tenure-holder's death. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was that "personal law" as amended up to the date of the tenure-holder's death would govern the devolution of interest.

3. Determination of heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The High Court held that the case falls under Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as Smt. Sarji died issueless and intestate, and the property was inherited from her husband. The Court applied the fiction in Rule 3 of Section 16, which deems the husband to have died intestate immediately after the female intestate's death. According to Section 8 of the Act, the property would devolve upon the heirs specified in Class II of the Schedule. Since the respondent, Smt. Gopikabai, is the daughter of the sister of the last male holder, Punjya, she is a preferential heir over the appellants, who are remote agnates.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the High Court, holding that the respondent, Smt. Gopikabai, is entitled to succeed to the estate of Smt. Sarji under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appeal was dismissed with costs.