JUDGMENT
S.N. Kapoor, J.
(1) In this Revision Petition, a short question which needs consideration is whether a “son” includes a “step-son” within the meaning of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act.
(2) First, the facts Father of the plaintiff/petitioner Lachhman Prasad married twice during his lifetime. The petitioner and his brother Mahender Prakash were born out of marriage of Lachman Prakash with Kala Wati. After the death of Kala Wati, Shri Lachhman Prasad married Hasmukh Wati. Out of the wed luck of Lachhman Prasad and Hasmukh Wati the second wife, one daughter namely Bela, the respondent was born. Shri Lachhman Prasad died on 1.11.51 leaving behind Hasmukh Wati as his widow, the petitioner. Rattan Prakash and his brother Mahender Prakash and his step-sister Bela. After the death of Lachhman Prasad, the property left by him was partitioned amongst Hasmukh Wati, Rattan Prakash and Mahender Prakash and each was given one-third share by virtue of an award given by Shri Bhagwan Dass, Advocate. In the award, provision for maintenance and education etc, of the respondent Bela, minor daughter of the deceased Lachhman Prasad was also made by allotting 900 shares of Dcm to her. Hasmukh Wati was awarded life interest in her one-third share under the award made in 1952, prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. Hasmukh Wati was filed a suit for partition and challenged the said award and in Rfa 69-D of 1964, a D B. of this court vide order dated 14th May, 19 74 declared Hasmukh Wati as sole and absolute owner of the share awarded to her, under the said award.
(3) A suit for partition was filed by Hasmukh Wati in respect of premises in dispute and the suit was still pending and during the pendency 336 of the suit Hasmukh Wati died. On her death, Smt. Bela Sihare, daughter of the deceased Hasmukh Wati filed an application under order 22, Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code claiming that the right to suit survived in her favour after the death of Hasmukh Wati. The claim of the petitioner was that he became the owner of the property as she had died intestate and as such he became entitled to his share out of the property of his deceased step-mother for the property was inherited from the father of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he performed even last rites of the deceased Hasmukh Wati just like a son. As such, the petitioner, his brother Mahender Prakash as well as Smt. Bela Sihare, step-sister of the petitioner became owners to the extent of one-third share. Learned Adj relied upon two judgments and substituted the respondent in place of Hasmukh Wati.
(4) Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed. [In paras 5-7, Ss. 15 & 16 of Succession Act have been reproduced ]
(5) In view of the plain language of S. 15 read with S. 16 of the Act, it is apparent that the “step-son” would not be included in S. 15(1)(a) within the term “sons”. He could only be an heir of her husband and he would be covered by S. 15(l)(b). And, in view of the rule set out in S. 16 of the Act, entry in clause (a) would take precedence over relations included in the clause (b) of S. 15(1) and subsequent clauses. This controversy has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in Lachman Singh vs. Kirpa Singh . After considering a contrary view taken by Allahabad High Court in 1968 All Lj 484, Supreme Court has specifically distinguished between the words “son” and “step-son” by observing as under : “The words son and step-son are not defined in the Act. According to Collins English Dictionary a 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 intestate. In the case of a woman it is natural that stepson, 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 S. 15(1) 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 S. 15(1) of the Act includes (1) sons born out of the womb of a female by the same husband or by different husbands including alleviate sons too in view of S. 3(i) 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 stepsons 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, i.e., a son of (he husband of a female by another wife did not simultaneously succeed to the stridhana of the female on her dying intestate. In that case, 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 should be such a radical departure from the past. We are of the view that the word “sons” in clause (a) of S. 15(1) of the Act does not include ‘step-sons’ and that step-sons fall in the category of the heirs of their husband referred to in clause (b) thereof.”
(6) The learned trial judge also relied upon two judgments Munda vs. Premnath Air 1980 Calcutta 234 and Ved Prakash vs. . . Air 1974 Punjab & Haryana 512 when he rejected the contention of the revision petitioner.
(7) In view of the above discussion, I feel that this court should not interfere in the impugned order passed by learned ADJ.
