New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that where a husband purchases property in the name of his wife, the property remains her exclusive property, and upon her death, succession to it must be determined on the basis of her ownership. It cannot be treated as the husband's estate for the purpose of applying ‘Section 33’ of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing a civil appeal arising out of a family property dispute between step-siblings and their successive generations, where the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court of Chhattisgarh had each taken differing views on the manner of succession.
The dispute concerned property purchased in 1959 by one Mattus Anthony (‘MA’), in the joint names of his two wives, Filomina and Shyam Bai. Filomina had three children the plaintiffs while Shyam Bai had one son, John Anthony, who predeceased her in 1985. Filomina died in 1985, MA died in 1991, and Shyam Bai died in 2000. In 2002, the defendants (John Anthony's legal heirs) sold their purported half share in the property to Defendant No.6, prompting the plaintiffs to institute a suit challenging the sale deed as illegal and non-binding on them.
The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding the property to be joint ancestral property of the heirs of both wives, declaring the 2002 sale deed void for want of the plaintiffs' consent, and granting the plaintiffs a one-fourth share. The First Appellate Court reversed this finding, holding that since MA had purchased the property from his own income and placed it in the names of his two wives, it was not ancestral property; each wife was independently entitled to a half share, and since the defendants were heirs of Shyam Bai's share, the sale deed in their favour could not be termed illegal.
The High Court, in the impugned judgment, relying on the Allahabad High Court's ruling in ‘Shephali Chatterjee & Ors. v. Kamla Banerjee & Ors.’, held that the expression ‘widow’ under Section 33 ISA would cover both of MA's widows collectively, entitling them together to one-third of the property. On the question of lineal descent, relying on the Calcutta High Court's decision in ‘In the Goods of Sarah Ezra, deceased’, it held that a lineal descendant must be the offspring of a lawful marriage, and since John Anthony did not meet this test, only the plaintiffs (Filomina's children) were held to be MA's lineal descendants, entitled to the remaining two-thirds.
Before the Supreme Court, the central question was whether the High Court had correctly applied the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to the dispute. The Court noted that Section 33 ISA, by its plain text, applies where a male dies intestate leaving behind his own property. The provision reads:
“33. Where intestate has left widow and lineal descendants, or widow and kindred only, or widow and no kindred. – Where the intestate has left a widow– (a) if he has also left any lineal descendants, one-third of his property shall belong to his widow, and the remaining two-thirds shall go to his lineal descendants, according to the rules hereinafter contained…”
The Court held that the application of Section 33 was misplaced, since the property had been bought squarely in the names of MA's two wives, and there was no dispute on this fact. The property, therefore, belonged to the two wives, not to MA. As Filomina had predeceased MA, the Court invoked ‘Section 35’ ISA – rights of a widower – which provides:
“35. Rights of widower. – A husband surviving his wife has the same rights in respect of her property, if she dies intestate, as a widow has in respect of her husband's property, if he dies intestate.”
Applying this, the Court held that with respect to Filomina's half of the property, one-third would rest with MA and the remaining two-thirds would devolve upon her successors, i.e., the plaintiffs. Section 33 could, at best, apply only to this one-third share that came to MA through Filomina – not to the property as a whole. Upon MA's death, this one-third share would further devolve equally upon all four of his children through Filomina and Shyam Bai, namely the three plaintiffs and John Anthony, with the defendants (John Anthony's heirs) inheriting only out of the portion that fell to John Anthony's line.
As regards the half of the property standing in Shyam Bai's name, the Court held that it would be distributed only amongst her own descendants, since Hindu-law concepts of joint family property have no application here, and property inherited under the ISA devolves as tenants-in-common. Since Shyam Bai's son John Anthony had predeceased her leaving behind grandchildren (the defendants), the Court applied ‘Section 38’ ISA, which provides that property shall be divided equally amongst surviving grandchildren where no child survives the intestate.
The Court further noted, without delving into either issue in detail since neither was pressed by the parties, the submission on benami transactions with reference to ‘Valliammal v. Subramaniam’, where it was held that the intention of parties is the essence of a benami transaction and that consideration must have flowed from the party alleging benami; and recorded that the status of Shyam Bai as MA's wife and later widow was not itself in dispute between the parties, the contest being confined to the extent of inheritance rights.
In view of the above, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of all three Courts below and allowed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Shakuntala & Ors. v. Robert Anthony & Ors.,Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).9449 of 2020
