Admittedly,Sub section (2) (b) provides for the mode of succession to the
property of female Hindu which she had inherited from her husband and State s
that the property goes to her husband s heirs. However it has to be borne in
mind that Cl(b) operates only "in the absence of any son or daughter of the
The deceased here obviously refer to the female Hindu . It is true that the
words " notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) " excludes the
provision in sub section (1) in so far as the succession of the property
inherited by a female Hindu from her husband concerned.
However,the special mode of succession provided in sub section (2) it self
restrict s the application of Cl (b) to cases where there is no son or daughter.
Where a son or daughter exist s the heirs of the husband can not succeed
according to sub section and the property must go to the son or daughter.
The only question is whether the word "son" should be restricted to the "Son "
of the husband from whom the Hindu female inherited the property or it should
include Hindu female irrespective of whether they are born of the husband. The
word "son" should not be restricted to mean a don of the husband whose property
is in dispute. From the language used in sub section (1) and (2) ,it is clear
the intention of the legislature was to allow succession of the property to the
sons and daughters of the Hindu female only in the absence of such heirs the
property would go to the husbands heirs.
It is true that the idea of the property of the deceased husband passing to the
previous husband's son is not in consonance with the orthodoxy Hindu Law. But
that alone can't be a ground for interpreting the unambiguous language of
section 15 differently. In scheme of Hindu Succession Act there are many
provision s which are contrary to thr orthodox Hindu law. Inspite of this effect
has to be given to them. For instance ,it appears that section 15(b) read the
definition of the word related in CL ( j) of section 3 will enable an
illegitimate son of the Hindu female to succeed to the estate of her Husband in
preference to the husbands heir.
This would be against the spirit of strict Hindu Law but the intention to bring
about this effect seems to be deliberate. Raghavacharier in his Hindu Law, 5th
Edition, states in his commentary of section 15 at page 915 that the sons must
necessarily mean the sons by both marriage s and also the daughters of such
marriage including the children of any predeceased son or daughter. The learned
commentator is thus of the view that the word "son" should be given its natural
meaning and not a restricted to confine it to the son of the husband whose
property is left by the Hindu female ( Keshri Parmal Lodhi vs Harprasad
A.I.R 1971 M.P 129 at p.p 130 /131 1970 jan L.J 779