Case: Satya Charan Dutta Vs. Urmilla Sundari Dassi &amp; Ors

2. The facts may be briefly stated. One Ratnamala Dassi who was governed by the Bengal School of Hindu Law as modified bythe Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act, died intestate in January 1964 leaving no issue or lineal descendants. Her husband Monmotha Nath Dutt had pre-deceased her. The said Ratnamala Dassi left her surviving the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, the brothers of her husband and respondent 1, Urmila Sundari Dassi her husbands sister. In 1964 respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for a declaration that as an heiress of Ratnamala Dassi she had 1/4 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 deceaseds 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 1/4 share in the estate left by Ratnamala Dassi. The appellant preferred an appeal to a Division Bench which was dismissed.

Reasoning: 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 numeralsnoticed before, it is that section which deals with the distribution of property among heirs in Class II of the Schedule. Indeed Section 11 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 I 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 orreason or justification has been suggested for making such a distinction. Similarly, on the appellants argument the sons daughters son should have preference over the sons daughters 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.6. It is true that the draftsmen, while employing the arabic numerals in Entries II to IV of Class II only, are likely to have something in mind but on whole and in view of the reasons which have been given above no particular significance can be given to the use of the arabic