Appeal No 1356 of 1956
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 3 1965 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No 85 of 1965
295 DN Mukherjee for the appellant
MC Bhandare Pratap Singh and K Rajendra Chaudhuri for respondent No 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover J
This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court
The facts may be briefly stated
One Ratanamala Dassi who was governed by the Bengal School of Hindu Law as modified by the  hereinafter called the Act died intestate in January 1964 leaving no issue or lineal descendants
Her husband Monmotha Nath Dutt had predeceased her
The said Ratnamala Dassi left her surviving the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 the brothers of her husband and respondent 1 Urmilla Sundari Dassi her husband s sister
In 1964 respondent No 1 instituted a suit for a declaration that as an heiress of Ratnamala Dassi she had 14 share in the movable and immovable property left by her and that she be allotted her share by partition of those properties
The appellant entered appearance and took up the plea in his written statement that under the Act he and respondents 2 and 3 being the brothers of the husband of the deceased Ratnamala Dassi were the heirs in preference to respondent 1 who
was the sister of the deceased s husband
The suit was tried on the original side by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court who granted a preliminary decree on December 23 1964 in favour of respondent 1 holding that she had 14 share in the estate left by Ratnamala Dassi
The appellant preferred an appeal to a division bench which was dismissed
The sole point which has to be considered is whether according to the order of succession as laid down in Class II of the Schedule to section 8 of the Act brother would succeed in preference to the sister or whether the brother and sister would succeed jointly having equal shares  According to section 151  when a female Hindu dies intestate her property devolves according to the Rules set out in section 16
Section 15 divides the groups of heirs of a female dying intestate into five categories described as Entries a to e
We are concerned in the present case with Entry b which is secondly upon the heirs of the husband
Section 16 provides that the order of succession among heirs referred to in section 15 shall be and the distribution of the intestate s property among those heirs shall take place according to the following Rules Rule l Among the heirs specified in sub section 1  of section 15 those in one entry shall be preferred 296 to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously
Rule 2     
Rule 3
The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses b d and e of sub section 1 and in sub section 2 of section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father s or the mother s or the husband s as the case may be and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate s death
 As the property in the present case was of the husband of Ratnamala Dassi we have to turn to section 8 to find out who would have been his heirs
Section 8 reads Section 8 The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter  a firstly upon the heirs being the relatives specified in class 1 of the Schedule
b secondly if there is no heir of class 1 then upon the heirs being the relatives specified in class 1I of the Schedule c thirdly if there is no heir of any of the two classes then upon the agnates of the deceased and d lastly if there is no agnate then upon  the cognates of the deceased
 The Schedule mentioned in section 8 to the extent it is material is reproduced below  CLASS 1 Son daughter widow mother son of a predeceased son daughter of a predeceased son son of a predeceased daughter daughter of a predeceased daughter widow of a predeceased son son of a predeceased son of a predeceased son daughter of a predeceased son of a predeceased son widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son
CLASS 11 I Father
297 II
1 Son s daughter s son 2 son s daughter s daughter 3 brother 4 sister
III     VII    VIII    Explanation     Section 9 lays down that among the heirs specified in the Schedule those in class 1 shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs and those m the first entry in class II shall be preferred to
those in the second entry and so on
Section 11 is to the effect that the property of an interstate shall be divided in any one entry in class II of the Schedule so that they share equally
Before the High Court the contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that brother being prefixed by arabic numeral 3 came before sister which word had the numeral 4 before it and that the object of using the numerals within a particular group was to prescribe the order of precedence or preference
It was also argued that the use of the arabic numerals in groups II III and IV of Class II must have some meaning otherwise the legislature would have used such numerals in respect of the heirs not only in class II but in class I as well
The learned judges of the division bench felt that the use of the arabic numerals appeared to be redundant but the combined effect of this section read with the others seems to
be that the legislature intended that the heirs named after numerals IIIII IV composed three entries only
We are unable to accede to the argument that the use of arabic numerals is decisive of the point whether or not the heirs specified in entry II of class II succeed simultaneously and equally
It is inconceivable that a matter of such importance should have been left to the employment of numerals alone
If the intention of the legislature was that each class of relatives shown against the arabic numerals constituted an entry express and specific provisions to that effect would have been made in the substantive sections of the Act
Indeed section Il says quite clearly that the property of an intestate shall be divided between the heirs specified in any one entry in class II of the Schedule so that they share equally
That language would not be consistent with the view that file heirs shown against the arabic numerals constitute an entry within the meaning of section 11
The Act was meant to lay down a comprehensive and uniform system of inheritance and its scheme is to 298 prescribe a set of rules for succession to the property of male and female Hindus dying intestate
Sections 8 to 13 contain the general rules relating to succession to the property of a male Hindu including the matter of ascertainment of shares
Sections 15 and 16 contain the general rules affecting succession to the property of a female Hindu
The rules relating to preferential heirs are given in s10
If the intention was to give preference among the heirs in Class II according to
arabic numerals treating the same as a separate entry some provision would undoubtedly have been made in s11 for that purpose
As noticed before it is that section which deals with the distribution of property among heirs in class II of the Schedule
Indeed s11 would be wholly unnecessary if each one of the heirs mentioned in each entry of class II were to take preference to the next one in the
same entry
It is also
significant that in class 1 male and female heirs have been treated as equal
There is no reason why any distinction should have been made among the heirs in class II on the ground of the heir being male or female
For instance in entry II in class Il a brother would have preference over the sister and in his presence the later would succeed if the submission on behalf of the appellant is to
be accepted
No reason or justification has been suggested for making such a distinction
Similarly on the appellant s argument the son s daughter s son should have preference over the son s daughter s daughter
That again would run counter to the whole scheme of the Act that male and female heirs should get equal treatment
It must be remembered that the Act incorporated one of the principal reforms which had become a pressing necessity owing to the changed social and economic conditions in Hindu society that in succession there should be equal distribution between male and female heirs
It is true that the draftsmen while employing the arabic numerals in entries Il to IV of class II only are likely to have something in mind but on the whole and in view of the reasons which have been given above no particular significance can be given to the use of the arabic numerals
Generally speaking numbers or numerals are employed in a statute for the sake of convenient and easy reference but their use cannot override the statutory provisions
Nor is it possible in the absence of any indication in the sections or in the Schedule itself to attribute such a radical departure from the general scheme of classification of heirs as has been suggested namely that in case of three entries only in class 11 the legislature intended to create an order of preference and lay down the same by the use of arabic numerals
There is no merit in this appeal which fails and it is dismissed with costs
VPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Under sections 15 and 16 of the  which deal with rules regarding succession to the property of a female Hindu where the property is that of her husband the heirs would be those set out in 8 Under section 8 there arc two classes of heirs mentioned in the Schedule to the Act
In Class 11 there are IX entries and only in entries 11 111 and IV the heirs are mentioned as against arabic numerals Brother  and sister  arc mentioned as items 3 and 4 in entry II of Class 11
Section 9 lays down that among the heirs specified in the Schedule those in Class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs and those in the entry I in Class II shall be preferred to those in entry II and so on
A Hindu widow in possession of her deceased husband s properties died in 1964 
She left no lineal descendants but her husband had three brothers and a sister surviving
On the question whether the three brothers were entitled to succeed to the property in preference to the sister on the ground that brother  is mentioned as item 3 of entry II of Class 11 whereas sister  is mentioned as item 4 HELD If the intention was to give preference among the heirs in Class 11 according to Arabic numerals treating such numerical item as a separate entry some provision to that effect would have been made in section 11
Section 11 states that the property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs specified in any one entry in Class II so that they share equally and the language in sections 9 and I 1 is not consistent with the view that Arabic numerals constitute entries within the meaning of section 11
Further the scheme of the Act is that male and female heirs should get equal treatment and in Class 1 male and female heirs have been treated as equal
There is no reason why any distinction should have been made among the heirs in Class 11 on the ground of sex
Therefore it is not possible in the absence of any indication in the sections or in the Schedule itself to attribute such a radical departure from the general scheme of classification that in case of three entries only in Class 11
entries II III and IV the Legislature intended to create an order of preference and lay down the same by the use of Arabic numerals
299 C D H 300 B H