Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Understanding section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with respect to the Self Acquired Property of a Person’s Ancestor.

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reads as under-

“8. General rules of succession in the case of males-

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 I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II 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.”

That the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter titled “Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur and Ors.”[1] has as very beautifully given by the quorum of Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.U. Lalit along with Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra and, further, authored by Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra explained certain aspects of the above mentioned provision.

           After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, it has become clear that if a person inherits a self acquired property from his paternal ancestor, the said property becomes his self-acquired property, and it does not remain coparcenery property.

If this position that came into fore after the formulation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, this position is very different from the position that existed before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 wherein the parties were governed by the Mitakshara Law and that in the case of the old Hindu Law such a property inherited by a Male Hindu from his paternal male ancestor shall be coparcenery property in his hand vis-à-vis his male descendant upto three degrees below him.

           However, in all cases, where the succession opened, after the coming in of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as stated herein above the person inherits a self acquired property from his paternal ancestors as a self-acquired property in his name as well.

           That the Judgment of “Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur and Ors.”[2] has explained the above said concept in a very elucidatory manner and the distinction which exists between the position that existed before 1956 and that existed after 1956. That it is further pertinent to mention that even in the case of “Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. V. Chander Sen and Ors”[3] the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the above said Judgment has dealt with the question regarding the income or asset which a son inherits from his father when separated by partition, that whether the same should be assessed as income of the Hindu Undivided Family of the Son or his individual income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the Judgment noted that-

“10.………..There is no dispute among the commentators on Hindu Law nor in the decisions of the Court that under the Hindu Law as it is, the son would inherit the same as karta of his own family. But the question, is, what is the effect of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 lays down the general rules of succession in the case of males. The first rule is that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of Chapter II and class I of the Schedule provides that if there is a male heir of class I then upon the heirs mentioned in class I of the Schedule. Class I of the Schedule reads as follows: Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a predeceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a predeceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a predeceased son; widow of a pre-deceased son of a predeceased son.”

 Further in para 11 stated-

“The heirs mentioned in class I of the Schedule are son, daughter etc. including the son of a pre-deceased son but does not include specifically the grandson, being a son of a son living. Therefore, the short question is, when the son as heir of class I of the Schedule inherits the property, does he do so in his individual capacity or does he do so as Karta of his own undivided family?”

That, therefore after evaluating the above and after evaluating the observation of Mulla’s Commentary on Hindu Law as well as Mayme on Hindu laws, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that the express words of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be ignored and must prevail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the Preamble to the Act reiterate that the Act is inter alia to ‘amend’ the law. With that background the express language which excluded Son’s son but included son of a predeceased son cannot be ignored. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally held that in the present case that the amount standing to the credit of the late Sh. Rangi Lal, (the predecessor) , after his death, was inherited by Chander Sen ( the successor) in his individual Capacity and not as a Karta of a joint family consisting of himself and his son.

Thus, the above said celebrated Judgments “Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. V. Chander Sen and Ors”[4] as well as “Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur and Ors.”[5] as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have settled the law on this subject.

PENNED BY SONALI MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE

(The author will like to appreciate her associate Ms. Ritika Sharma, Advocate and Legal intern Mr. Sahil Satija for their assistance) 

[1] MANU/SC/0864/2019

[2] MANU/SC/0864/2019

[3] MANU/SC/0265/1986

[4] MANU/SC/0265/1986

[5] MANU/SC/0864/2019