SC reiterates inheritance depends upon the question of whether a person supports the deceased in his old age or not [Read Judgment] Courtesy latest laws.com

SC reiterates inheritance depends upon the question of whether a person supports the deceased in his old age or not [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 7th November, 2007, passed with Cross Objection, vide which, the learned single judge of the High Court has allowed the said Second Appeal filed by the respondents herein and dismissed the cross objection preferred by the appellants herein.

Brief Facts:

P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami were married to each other. One son died at the age of one and half year in the year 1940 and one daughter died a week after her birth. After his death, his youngest daughter was divorced and came to live with her mother. The son Thanhnuna, who died in the year 1996, was survived by his widow Ralliani and two daughters who are the respondents herein. After the death of P.S. Dahrawka, the son Thanhnuna applied for the heirship certificate in his name in respect of the properties covered which were left by his father. However, before his application for heirship certificate could be decided, Thanhnuna died on 28th April, 1996. After his death, his mother Kaithuami submitted an objection. The Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl dismissed the application of Thanhnuna. His widow Ralliani filed an application for restoration of application for heirship certificate filed by her husband deceased Thanhnuna. The same was dismissed. In the meantime, mother Kaithuami also filed an application claiming heirship certificate in respect of the properties of her husband deceased P.S. Dahrawka. The said application was objected to by Ralliani and her two daughters. The Appellate Court vide order dated 9th July, 2001 directed that the disputed property to be divided between four daughters of Kaithuami. The said judgment and order of the Appellate Court was assailed by the appellants herein before the High Court.

HC’s Decision:

By the impugned judgment and order dated 7th November, 2007, the High Court has allowed the said Second Appeal and dismissed the Cross Objection, thereby holding that it is only the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein being legal heirs of Thanhnuna, who were entitled to the rights in the property to the exclusion of the appellants herein.

Appellant’s Contention:

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court failed to take into consideration that under the Mizo Customary Law it is not only the rights which are inherited, but it is also the responsibilities which are inherited. It was submitted that the inheritance depends upon the responsibilities discharged by a legal heir towards his/her parents in their old age. It was submitted that since Thanhnuna had not looked after his mother or the family members, he or his legal heirs were not entitled to any rights in the property. As such, the High Court had grossly erred in allowing the Second Appeal and dismissing the Cross Objection.

Respondent’s Contention:

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has rightly allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents herein and dismissed the Cross Objection filed by the appellants herein. It was submitted that the property in question was not covered by the agreement dated 28th January, 1927 and is guided by the Mizo Customary Law. It was submitted that according to Mizo Customary Law, Thanhnuna being the only son was the only legal heir of his late father P.S. Dahrawka. It was submitted that Thansangi Huha was divorced on 20th June, 1980. She however chose not to stay with her mother for 17 long years. She came to live with her mother Kaithuami only after the death of Thanhnuna.

SC’s Observations:

After hearing both the sides SC found that till his death, Thanhnuna was looking after his mother. However, after his death, Thansangi Huha came back to her original home to look after her aged mother Kaithuami. SC found that the provision of Mizo Customary Law relating to ‘divorced’ (Hringkir) in the matter of inheritance would apply to her and her right to inheritance of her father’s properties subsists by virtue of her being divorced (Hringkir) and coming back to the original family for looking after the mother.

SC found that as per the Mizo Customary Law, it is the youngest son, who would be entitled to inherit the property of his father; there is an ample scope for distribution of the property in a fair and reasonable manner.

SC stated that the District Council Court found that since Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4 herein) had discharged her responsibility of looking after her mother till her death and was occupying the main bed and reassuming her father’s clan title ‘Hahu’, her right to inherit her father’s properties could not be defeated.

SC relied upon the case of Thansiami vs. Lalruatkima and ors. where the Court held that the inheritance depends upon the question as to whether a person supports the deceased in his old age or not. It has been held that even if a natural heir does not support his parents, he would not be entitled to inheritance. It has further been held that even if there is a natural heir, a person who supports the person until his death could inherit the properties of that person.

SC Held:

After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “we are therefore of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in reversing the well-reasoned and equitable judgment and order passed by the District Council Court dated 28th February, 2006”

Case Title: Smt. Kaithuami Through L.RS. v. Smt. Ralliani and others

Bench: J. L. Nageswara Rao and J. B.R. Gavai