New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that, under Section 51(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, the personal law relevant to succession to the holding of a woman Bhumidhar who had inherited an interest as a widow, mother or daughter before the Act came into force is the personal law applicable on the date of her death, and not the law as it stood on 20.07.1954. The court dismissed an appeal by the reversioners of a deceased male holder, upholding a Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment that sustained mutation in favour of the woman's sons.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria was hearing Civil Appeal No. 9146 of 2012, arising from the judgment dated 09.08.2012 in LPA No. 92 of 2005, which concerned Khata No. 273/222, admeasuring about 45 bighas in Bhawana Village, Delhi. The land was held by Khajano, widow of Mauji Ram and mother of Ram Chander, who died in 1937. Khajano later contracted a karwa (re-marriage) with Bal Kishan and was declared a Bhumidhar under Section 11 of the Act. She died in 1973, leaving two sons from her second marriage, who applied in 1997 for mutation in their favour. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered mutation on 25.04.1997, which was affirmed by the Additional Collector and the Financial Commissioner. The appellants, who claimed as male lineal descendants of Mauji Ram's brothers, succeeded before a Single Judge of the High Court on 09.12.2004, but the Division Bench reversed that decision, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bajaya v. Gopikabai.
The senior counsel for the appellants argued that Khajano held only a limited estate when the 1954 Act came into force, that her Bhumidhari status carried that limited right, that her remarriage ended her interest in the estate of her first husband and son, and that, on her death, Section 51(2)(a)(i) applied so that the holding devolved under Section 50 on the male heirs of the last male holder. It was argued that the personal law stood crystallised as on 20.07.1954 and that Bajaya, which arose under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, was distinguishable. The senior counsel for the respondents argued that the claim was made under Section 51(2)(a)(ii) of the 1954 Act and not directly under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that the relevant personal law is the law in force on the date of the Bhumidhar's death.
The court agreed with the view that the 1954 Act is a complete code, noting that the real question was whether the personal law of 20.07.1954 or that on the date of the Bhumidhar's death applies. It held that Section 51(2)(a) uses the simple present tense "dies" as the trigger, while the phrase "inherited an interest" is in the past tense, and that the deciding factors are the timing of death and the nature of the right held by the Bhumidhar at that time. Treating the expression "personal law" in Section 51(2) as a general referential term, in line with the principle laid down in Bajaya, the court held that both clauses turn on "the personal law applicable to her", and that the personal law is not frozen on the enactment of the 1954 Act.
Examining Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and its Explanation, including the words "or in any other manner whatsoever", the court held that a Hindu widow's limited estate was enlarged into an absolute estate with effect from 17.06.1956, inferentially including her rights as a Bhumidhar. The court observed that, had Khajano died between 20.07.1954 and 17.06.1956, Section 51(2)(a)(i) would have applied, as she then held only a limited estate. Since she died in 1973 holding the property absolutely, the holding devolved under Section 53 of the 1954 Act and not under Section 50, which benefits the reversioners.
The court found that the decisions relied on by the appellants were not on point and were distinguishable, that none was directly on the issue, and that the Division Bench had correctly captured the ratio of Bajaya. Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the court dismissed the civil appeal with no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered on October 9, 2026 and is reported as 2026 INSC 1107.
Appearances:
For the Appellants: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Senior Counsel.
For Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan, Senior Counsel.
Case Title: Sultan Singh (Dead) through LRs and Others vs. The Financial Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, Civil Appeal No. 9146 of 2012 (2026 INSC 1107)
