LACHMAN SINGH versus KIRPA SINGH & OTHERS

LACHMAN SINGH versus KIRPA SINGH & OTHERS

The word 'sons' in clause (a) of section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not include 'step-sons'; step-sons fall under clause (b) as heirs of the husband. Therefore, Kirpa Singh, being the only biological son of Khem Kaur, is entitled to inherit her property to the exclusion of step-sons. The construction that would allow step-sons to share equally under clause (a) is not supported by the Act.

Parties
Petitioner: Lachman Singh; Respondent: Kirpa Singh; Respondent: Amarjit Singh; Respondent: Gurbax Kaur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 April 1987
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Decision on SLP Against High Court Judgment
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Hindu Succession Act, Intestate Succession, Step Children’s Rights, Interpretation of 'son' and 'step Son'
Succession Law Hindu Law Hindu Succession Act Intestate Succession Step Children’s Rights Interpretation of 'son' and 'step Son'

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lachman Singh

Petitioner

Kirpa Singh

Respondent

Amarjit Singh

Respondent

Gurbax Kaur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Decision on SLP Against High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a 'step-son' is entitled to claim a share in the property of a Hindu female dying intestate simultaneously with her 'son'.
  2. 2 Whether the word 'sons' in clause (a) of section 15(1) of the Act includes 'step-sons'.

Ratio Decidendi

The word 'sons' in clause (a) of section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not include 'step-sons'; step-sons fall under clause (b) as heirs of the husband. Therefore, Kirpa Singh, being the only biological son of Khem Kaur, is entitled to inherit her property to the exclusion of step-sons. The construction that would allow step-sons to share equally under clause (a) is not supported by the Act.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • The judgment and decree in favour of Kirpa Singh affirmed.