IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 1283 OF 2004 Smt. Sonabai Maruti Kirulkar ... Appellants & Ors. Vs Madhav Hari Bhike & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. R. S. Datar, for the Appellant. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: JANUARY 27, 2009. P.C.: ---- . One Balu Musale had 3 daughter by name Nanibai, Sitabai and Girjabai. Girjabai had died unmarried long back. Sitabai was married to one Maruti Kirulkar. The present appellant No.1 is the second wife of Maruti, whereas other appellants are the children of appellant No.1 born from Maruti. Sitabai did not conceive any child out of her wedlock with Maruti, and the record reveals that during the life time of Maruti, she was residing with her sister Nanibai; Sitabai did not have any child from marriage with Maruti. Suit property is admittedly inherited by Sitabai from her father. In these circumstances, appellants filed a suit for partition and separate possession contending that the estate of Sitabai would - 2 - devolve upon heirs of her husband and not to Nanibai, her sister. 2. Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act deals with the property inherited by a female Hindu from her father. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 deals with the general rules of succession in case of female Hindu who receives the property from her father. Sub-section (2a) of Section 15 provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) - 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, not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father". In this view of the matter, the heirs of Maruti cannot succeed to the estate of deceased Sitabai which she had inherited from her father and the same would devolve upon heirs of her father. Father of Sitabai had left behind only heir Nanibai and hence, she would be entitled to succeed to the property left behind by Sitabai. Both the Courts have taken a correct view of the matter, and hence, Nanibai sister of Sitabai would inherit the property left by Sitabai. No question of law emerges in this appeal, much less a substantial question of law. - 3 - 3. The learned counsel for appellant has tried to contend that the matter in question would not be governed by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. There is no merit in this submission, in view of the fact that Sitabai expired on 24th August 1972 and hence her property would devolve according to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence, this contention is rejected. There being no merit in this Second Appeal, appeal is summarily rejected. Sd/- [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.]