Special Leave Petition Civil No 2730 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 8121986 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No 1773 of 1986 0  M
KG Bhagat and Sunil K Jain for the Appellants
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether under the provisions of the hereinafter referred to as the Act  a step son of a female dying intestate is entitled to claim a share in her property simultaneously with her son
In other words the question involved is wheth er the word sons  in clause a of sub section 1 of section 15 of the Act includes step sons  also
The facts involved in this Special Leave Petition are thus
One Battan Singh who was also known as Badan Singh had two wives namely Mahan Kaur and Khem Kaur
Mahan Kaur died during his life time after giving birth to two sons Lachman Singh petitioner and Gurdas Singh from the loins of Battan Singh
Respondent No 1 Kirpa Singh is the son of Battan Singh and Khem Kaur
Gurdas Singh died during the life time of Battan Singh leaving behind his widow Gurbux Kaur and his son Amarjit Singh
Battan Singh died intestate after the Act came into force
On his death his property devolved on his heirs including his second wife Khem Kaur in accordance with the provisions of the Act
Thereafter Khem Kaur died
On her death dispute arose between her son Kirpa Singh on the one side and Lachman Singh Amarjit Singh and Gurbux Kaur on the other
Kirpa Singh claimed the entire property left behind by Khem Kaur on the ground 936 that he was the only son of Khem Kaur
Lachman Singh Amar jit Singh and Gurbux Kaur claimed that Kirpa Singh was entitled to only one third share in the property of Khem Kaur Lachman Singh was entitled to one third share and Amarjit Singh who was the son of Gurdas Singh was entitled to the remaining one third share
Both the parties relied upon clause a of section 151 of the Act
While Kirpa Singh contended that the word sons  in section 151a of the Act meant only sons born of the body of the Hindu female dying intestate the others contended that the word sons  in that clause included stepsons also
In view of the above dispute Kirpa Singh filed a suit on the file of the Sub Judge 1st Class Nakodar in the District of Jalandhar inter alia for a declaration that he was entitled to the entire property belonging to Khem Kaur against Lachman Singh Amarjit Singh and Gurbux Kaur who contested the suit
The trial court vide its judgment dated February 18 1984 de creed the suit declaring that Kirpa Singh was entitled to the property belonging to Khem Kaur
Lachman Singh preferred an appeal against the decree of the trial court in RCA No 202 of 1985 on the file of the learned Additional Dis trict Judge Jalandhar
That appeal was dismissed on Febru ary 19 1986
The second appeal filed by him against the judgment of the Additional District Judge Jalandhar in RSA No 1773 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana was also dismissed in limine on December 8 1986
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court Lachman Singh has filed this petition for special leave under Arti cle 136 of the Constitution of India
Section 15 of the Act which is relevant for purposes of this case reads thus 151
The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16 a firstly upon the sons and daughters including the children of any predeceased son or daughter and the husband b secondly upon the heirs of the husband c thirdly upon the mother and father d fourthly upon the heirs of the father and e lastly upon the heirs of the mother
937 2 Notwithstanding anything con tained in sub section  1  a any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased including the children of any predeceased son or daughter not upon the other heirs referred to in sub section 1 in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of the father and b any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father in law shall devolve in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased including the children of any predeceased son or daugh ter not upon the other heirs referred to in sub section 1 in the order specified there in but upon the heirs of the husband
Section 15 of the Act deals with the general rules of suc cession in the case of female Hindus
Sub section 1 of section 15 provides that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16 of the Act firstly upon the sons and daugh ters including the children of any predeceased son or daughter and the husband secondly upon the heirs of the husband thirdly upon the mother and father fourthly upon the heirs of the father and lastly upon the heirs of the mother
Sub section 2 of section 15 of the Act arises for consideration only when a female Hindu dies intestate leav ing property without leaving behind her any son or daughter including the children of any predeceased son or daughter and in that event any property inherited by her from her father or mother shall devolve not upon the other heirs referred to in sub section 1 of section 15 of the Act in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of the father and any property inherited by her from her husband or from her father in law shall devolve not upon the other heirs referred to in sub section 1 of section 15 in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of the husband Rule 1 of section 16 provides that among the heirs specified in sub section 1 of section 15 those in one entry shah be preferred to those in the succeeding entry and those includ ed in the same entry shall take simultaneously
It is not necessary to refer to rule 2 and Rule 3 of section 16 of the Act for purposes of this ease
The only question which is to be determined here is whether the expression sons  in clause 2 of section 151 of the Act includes 938 step sons also ie sons of the husband of the deceased by another wife
In order to decide it it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act
Section 3j of the Act defines related  as related by legitimate kinship but the proviso thereto states that illegitimate children shall be deemed to be related to their mother and to one another and their legitimate descendants shall be deemed to be related to them and to one another and that any word expressing relationship or denoting a relative shall be construed accordingly
Section 6 and section 7 of the Act respectively deal with devolution of interest in coparcenary property and devolution of interest in the property of a tarwad tavazhi kutumba kavaru and illom
Sections 8 to 13 of the Act deal with rules of succession to the property of a male Hindu dying intestate
We are concerned in this case with the rules of succession to the property of a female Hindu dying intestate
Sections 15 and 16 of the Act are material for our purpose
Ordinarily laws of succession to property follow the natural inclinations of men and women
The list of heirs in section 151 of the Act is enumerated having regard to the current notions about propinquity or nearness of relationship
The words son  and stop son  are not defined in the Act
According to Collins English Dic tionary a son  means a male offspring and step son  means a son of one s husband or wife by a former union
Under the Act a son of a female by her first marriage will not succeed to the estate of her second husband  on his dying intes tate
In the case of a woman it is natural that a step son that is the son of her husband by his another wife is a step away from the son who has come out of her own womb
But under the Act a step son of a female dying intestate is an heir and that is so because the family headed by a male is considered as a social unit
If a step son does not fall within the scope of the expression sons  in clause a of section 151 of the Act he is sure to fall under clause b thereof being an heir of the husband
The word sons  in clause a of section 151 of the Act includes i sons born out of the womb of a female by the same husband or by different husbands including illegitimate sons too in view of section 3j of the Act and ii adopted sons who are deemed to be sons for purposes of inheritance
Children of any predeceased son or adopted son also fall within the meaning of the expression sons 
If Parliament had felt that the word sons  should include step sons  also it would have said so in express terms
We should remember that under the Hindu law as it stood prior to the coming into force of the Act a step son ie a son of the husband of a female by another wife did not simultaneously succeed to the stridhana of the female on her dying intestate
In that case the son born out of her womb had precedence over a step son
Parliament would have made express provision in the Act if it intended that there 939 should be such a redical departure from the past
We are of the view that the word sons  in clause a of section 151 of the Act does not include step sons  and that step sons fall in the category of the heirs of the husband referred to in clause b thereof
The decision of the Mysore Karnataka High Court in Mallappa Fakirappa Sanna Nagashetti and Others vs Shivappa and another AIR  takes the view which we have expressed above
According to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Rama Ananda Patil vs Appa Bhima Redekar and Others AIR 1969 Bombay 205 the emphasis in clause a of section 151 of the Act is on the aspect that the sons or the daughters are of her own body and not so much on the husband who was responsible for their birth and that therefore children of a female though by different husbands inherit her estate simultaneously
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has in Gumam Singh vs Smt
Ass Kaur and Others AIR 1977 P  H 103 following the observations in the decisions of the Mysore and Bombay High Courts referred to above held that the word sons  in section 151a of the Act does not include a step son 
The High Court of Calcut ta has also taken the same view in Smt
Kishori Bala Mondal vs Tribhanga Mondal  Others AIR 1980 Calcutta 334
It is true that the Allahabad High Court has taken a contrary view in Ram Katori vs Prakash Wati ILR 1968 1 Allahabad 697
In that case the facts were however slightly different but the point involved was almost the same
The facts of the case were as follows
One Chandu Lal had mar ried a woman
She died during the life time of Chandu Lal leaving behind her a daughter by Ram Katori
Thereafter Chandu Lal married a second woman by name Ram Kali through whom he got a daughter by name Prakashwati
Chandu Lal died in 1920 and on his death Ram Kali being his widow succeeded to his estate as a limited owner
After the coming into force of the Act in 1956 her limited estate ripened into absolute estate and she became the full owner of the estate inherited by her from her husband
Ram Kali died thereafter
On her death Ram Katori the daughter of Chandu Lal by his first wife contended that she was entitled to succeed simul taneously with Prakashwati to the estate of Ram Kali which originally belonged to her father and claimed one half share in it
Her claim was resisted by Prakashwati stating that the word daughters  in section 151a of the Act did not include step daughters  and that Ram Katori would fall under the category of the heirs of the husband and would be entitled to succeed either under clause b of section 151 or under clause b of section 152 of the Act and that too in the absence of 940 sons and daughters of Ram kali including children of prede ceased sons and daughters
It was further contended by Prakashwati that the fact that the property in question had formerly belonged to the husband of Ram Kali did not matter at all because Ram Kali had left behind her who was a daugh ter of her own body entitled to succeed under section 151a and that Ram Katori being a step daughter could not claim under section 151a of the Act
The High Court of Allahabad felt that there was a distinction between clause a of section 151 and clauses a and b of section 152 of the Act in that whereas in section 151a the words sons and daughters  were unqualified the words son or daughter  in clauses a and b of section 152 were qualified by the words of the deceased  and therefore conclusion was irresistible that the unqualified words sons and daughters  in section 151a of the Act indicated that they included also the children of her husband by another wife
The High Court also appears to have been moved by the consideration that the opposite construction would be pat ently unfair to the children by her husband s another wife since they would be deprived of their share in the property which originally belonged to their father
We feel that neither of these reasons is correct
The words sons and daughters   and the husband  in clause a of section 251 only mean sons and daughters  and the husband  of the deceased
They cannot be sons and daughters  and the husband  of any body else
All relatives named in the different clauses in sub section 1 of section 15 of the Act are those who are related to the deceased in the manner specified therein
They are sons daughters husband heirs of the husband mother and father heirs of the father and heirs of the mother of the deceased
The use of the words of the deceased  following son or daughter  in clauses a and b of sub section 2 of section 15 of the Act makes no difference
The words son or daughter of the deceased including the children of any predeceased son or daughter  in clauses a and b of section 152 of the Act refer to the entire body of heirs failing under clause a of section 151 of the Act except the husband
What clauses a and b of sub section 2 of section 15 of the Act do is that they make a distinction between devolution of the property inherited by a female Hindu dying intestate from her father or mother on the one hand and the property inherited by her from her husband and from her father in law on the other
In the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased including the children of any predeceased son or daughter in a case failing under clause a of section 152 of the Act the property devolves upon the heirs of the father of the deceased and in a case falling under clause b of section 152 of the Act the property devolves upon the heirs of the husband of the 941 deceased
The distinction made by the High Court of Allaha bad on the ground of the absence or the presence of the words of the deceased  in sub section 1 and sub section 2 of section 15 of the Act appears to be hyper technical and the High Court has tried to make a distinction where it does not actually exist
The second reason namely that exclusion of step sons  and step daughters  from clause a of section 151 of the Act would be unfair as they would thereby be deprived of a share in the property of their father is again not well founded
The rule of devolu tion in section 15 of the Act applies to all kinds of properties left behind by a female Hindu except those dealt with by clauses a and b of section 152 which make a distinction as regards the property inherited by her from her parents and the property inherited from her husband or father in law and that too when she leaves no sons and daughters including children of predeceased sons and daugh ters
If the construction placed by the High Court of Allahabad is accepted then the property earned by the female Hindu herself or purchased or acquired by her would devolve on step sons and stepdaughters also along with her sons and daughters
Is it just and proper to construe that under clause a of section 151 of the Act her stepsons and step daughters ie children of the husband by another wife will be entitled to a share along with her own children when the Act does not expressly says so We do not think that the view expressed by the High Court of Allahabad represents the true intent of the law
When once a property becomes the absolute property of a female Hindu it shall devolve first on her children including children of the  predeceased son and daughter as provided in section 151a of the Act and then on other heirs subject only to the limited change introduced in section 152 of the Act
The step sons or step daughters will come in as heirs only under clause b of section 151 or under clause b of section 152 of the Act
We do not therefore agree with the reasons given by the Allahabad High Court in support of its decision
We disagree with this decision
In the circumstances we hold that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against whose decision this petition is filed was right in affirming the decree passed in favour of Kirpal Singh Respondent No 1 herein
The Special Leave Petition is therefore dismissed
APJ Petition dismissed


Summary:
Battan Singh had two wives namely Mahan Kaur and Khem Kaur
Mahan Kaur died during his lifetime after giving birth to two sons Lachman Singh petitioner and Gurdas Singh
Gurdas Singh pre deceased Battan Singh leaving behind his widow Gurbax Kaur and his son Amarjit Singh
Respondent No 1 Kirpa Singh is the son of the Battan Singh and Khem Kaur
Battan Singh died intestate after the came into force and his property devolved on his heirs including his second wife Khem Kaur
On her death Kirpa Singh claimed her entire property on the ground that he was her only son
Lachman Singh Amarjit Singh and Gurbax Kaur claimed that Kirpa Singh was entitled to only 13rd share in the property of Khem Kaur Lachman Singh was entitled to 13rd share and Amarjit Singh was entitled to the remaining 13rd share
Kirpa Singh filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to the entire property belonging to Khem Kaur against Lachman Singh Amarjit Singh and Gurbax Kaur
The trial Court decreed the suit
The appeals filed by Lachman Singh before the Additional District Judge and in the High Court were dismissed
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition HELD 1
Ordinarily laws of succession to property follow the natural inclinations of men and women
938C D 2
The list of heirs in section 151 of the is enumerated having regard to the current notions about the propinquity 934 or nearness of relationship
The words son  and step son  are not defined in the Act
938C D 3
Under the Act a son of a female by her first mar riage will not succeed to the estate of her second husband  on his dying intestate
In the case of a woman it is natural that a step son that is the son of her husband by his another wife is a step away from the son who has come out of her own womb
But under the Act a step son of a female dying intestate is an heir and that is so because the family headed by a male is considered as a social unit
If a step son does not fail within the scope of the expression sons  in cl
a of section 151 of the Act he is sure to fail under cl
b thereof being an heir of the husband
938D F 4
The word sons  in cl
a of section 151 of the Act includes i sons born out of the womb of a female by same husband or by different husbands including illegitimate sons too in view of section 3j of the Act and ii adopted sons who are deemed to be sons for purposes of inheritance
938F G 5
Under the Hindu law as it stood prior to the coming into force of the Act a step son ie a son of the husband of a female by another wife did not simultaneously succeed to the stridhana of the female on her dying intestate
In that case the the son born out of her womb had precedence over a step son
Parliament would have made express provi sion in the Act if it intended that there should be such a radical departure from the past
938G H 939A 6
The word sons  in cl
a of section 151 of Act does not include step sons  and that step sons fail in the category of the heirs of the husband referred to in cl
b thereof
939A B Mallappa Fakirappa Sanna Nagashetti and Others vs Shi vappa and another AIR  Rama Ananda Patii vs Appa Bhima Redekar and Others AIR 1969 Bombay 205 Gumam Singh vs Smt
Ass Kaur and Others AIR 1977 P  H 103 and Smt
Kishori Bala Mondal vs Tribhanga Mondal  Others AIR 1980 Calcutta 334 approved
Ram Katori vs Prakash Nati LLR 1968 1 Allahabad 697 overruled
The rule of devolution in section 15 of the Act applies to all kinds of properties left behind by a female Hindu except those dealt with by cls
a and b of section 152 which make a distinction as regards the property 935 inherited by her from her parents and the property inherited from her husband or father in law and that too when she leaves no sons and daughters including children of prede ceased sons and daughters
941B C 8
When once a property becomes the absolute property of a female Hindu it shall devolve first on her children including children of the predeceased sons and daughter as provided in section 151a of the Act and then on other heirs subject only to the limited change introduced in section 152 of the Act
The step sons or step daughters will come in as heirs only under cl
b ors
151 or under cl
b or section 152 of the Act
941E F