Yellaya Gounder and Another vs Lakshmi and Others

N.S. Ramaswami, J.—The question raised in this civil revision petition is about the interpretation of Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act,

hereinafter referred to as the Act. O. P. 11 of 1966 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Salem, is one for the grant of succession certificate

in respect of collection of certain debts left by one Ramaswami. The claimants are his sisters, by name Lakshmi and Sellammal, Ramaswami, since

deceased. Lakshmi and Sellammal are the children of one Koocha Gounder through the second wife one Ramayee Ammal. The said Koocha

Gounder begot theree other children through his first wife Kaveri alias Kapadiammal and they are Vellava Gounder, Chinna Gounder and Veeri

Ammal. These three children, through the first wife, who are the half brothers and half sisters of deceased Ramaswami resisted the claim for

succession certificate contending that the certificate should be issued not only in favour of the two full sisters of Ramaswami but also in their (half

brothers'' and half sister''s) favour. Ramaswami did not leave any class I heir. His father had also predeceased him. His brothers and sisters are the

only near relations left by him and they come under Entry II, Class II of the schedule. They would take the estate of Ramaswami simultaneously,

but only subject to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act which excludes half blood in preference to full blood. The District Munsif

interpreted Section 18 in such a way that he held that only Veeriammal, the step sister would be excluded hut the two step brothers of Ramaswami

cannot be excluded in succeeding to the estate of the deceased. The claimants, namely, the two full sisters of Ramaswami (one of the claimants

died and her legal representatives came to be added) filed A. S. 361 of 1970 on the file of the District Judge, Salem, and the learned Additional

District Judge held that even the two step brothers are excluded as against the two full sisters of deceased Ramaswami in succeeding to his estate.

The succession certificate had been ordered to be granted only in favour of the claimants. As against this the two step brothers of Ramaswami

have filed the present revision petition.

Section 18 of the Act is as follows--

Heirs related to an intestate by full blood shall be preferred to heirs related by half blood, if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other

respect.

What is the meaning of the term ''if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other respect'' occurring in the above section, is the question.

The point is. whether in the present case, the claimants who are sisters of the deceased by full blood would exclude not only the sister by half

blood but also the two brothers by half blood. There is no decided ease on this point by this Court. The very question was raised in the case

reported in Nesamma Nadachi Vs. Muthukannu Nadar Paul Nadar, but the point has not been answered in that decision, on the ground that it was

not necessary for the purpose of that case.

I do not find any difficulty in the interpretation of Section 18 of the Act and my view is that the conclusion of the appellate Judge that the two

sisters of Ramaswami by full blood excluded not only the sister by half blood but also the brothers by half blood is correct. There is no warrant at

all for interpreting Section 18 in such a way that if there are sisters by full blood, they would exclude only sister or sisters by half blood but they

would not exclude brother or brothers by half blood. Sex has no relevance to the term ''the nature of the relationship is the same in every other

respect'' occurring in the section. As a matter of fact, if the section merely stated ''if the relationship is the same in every other respect'' and did not

use the words ''if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other respect'', then a sister by full blood could exclude only a sister by half

blood but could not exclude a brother by half blood. That is so because the relationship to the deceased is not the same in the case of a brother

and sister. While one is a brother, the other is a sister. Therefore, if the section had simply stated that if the relationship is the same in every other

respect, then a sister by full blood can exclude only a sister by half blood, for the relationship of both to the deceased is the same, namely, sister;

and she (sister by full blood) cannot exclude a brother by half blood because the relationship to the deceased is not the same as one is a sister and

the other is a brother to the deceased. It is in order to avoid such a contingency, the section uses the words ''if the nature of the relationship is the

same in every other respect''. There can be no doubt that the nature of relationship of a sister and a brother (in respect of the deceased) is one and

the same in every other respect (sex has no relevance) for there is no difference either in respect of ascent or descent or in any other way.

As pointed out by Mulla in the 13th Edition at page 852, Section 18 is a substantial reproduction of the rule of Hindu Law, whereby relations of

the whole blood are preferred to those of the half blood. It is pointed out there that the section lays down a rule of general applicability to heirs

male and female alike. The learned author had stated that the words ''if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other respect'' may

require judicial interpretation. After stating this, the author gives his own view on the matter and points out that the section speaks of the nature of

the relationship being the same and it would seem that in all such cases heirs related to an intestate by full blood would be preferred to heirs related

by half blood having regard, inter alia, to the nature of relationship indicated in the scheme of the Act itself. The author concludes--

The meaning of the words, ''nature of relationship'' must be found in the sense in which they best harmonise with the scheme and object of the Act

and not so much in a strictly etymological propriety of language. The general scheme of succession under the Act is to treat the son and the

daughter in aequali jura and to regulate the order of succession having regard to the degree of kindred to him. It is, therefore, submitted that since a

brother and a sister of the intestate stand in the same degree of relation to him the nature of their relationship with the intestate is the same in every

other respect."" In Raghavachariar''s Hindu Law, 6th Edn. at page 951, (under the commentry to Section 18), the same position is affirmed for the

author says that Section 18 deals with the preference of full blood relations over half blood relations, that even under the law prior to the Act, in the

case of heirs of the same degree of relationship to the propositus. the whole blood excludes the half blood and that having regard to the general

scheme of the Hindu Law of Succession, the preference to the whole blood over the half blood is confined to the relations of the same degree.

However, in the commentary under Clause II of the Schedule, while dealing with Entry II of Class II at page 978, the learned author stated that if

in a particular case, there is a full brother, a half brother and a half sister, the full brother and the half sister will inherit, but the half brother will be

excluded. After interpreting the provisions of Section 18 in the above manner, the learned author points out the incongruity and says :--

Why a half sister should come in while a half brother should go out in such a group of heirs it is impossible to see. One way of avoiding this

anomaly is to hold that a full brother or full sister will exclude both a half brother and half sister.

I am of the view that there is no warrant for the alternative interpretation out by the learned author which he himself states results in an anomaly.

As a matter of fact, the interpretation according to which a full brother would exclude only a half brother and not a half sister and similarly a full

sister would exclude only a half sister and not a half brother does lead to an anomaly. As pointed out by Mulla, the general scheme of succession

under the Act is to treat the son and the daughter in aequali jura and to regulate the order of succession having regard to the degree of kindred to

him. Further the section is a substantial reproduction of the rule of Hindu Law whereby the accepted principle is that relations of the whole blood

are preferred to those of the half blood. That being so, I am unable to see why Section 18 should be interpreted in such a way that a full brother

would exclude only a half brother and not a half sister. That, in fact, would be incongruous, for, in such a situation, a half sister would inherit along

with a full brother, but a half brother would be excluded. Surely the section is not intended to give better right to a half sister than that to a half

brother. If the revision petition is to be accepted, in some cases, half brothers would take part in inheritance to the exclusion of half sisters and in

some other cases half sisters would take part while the half brothers would be excluded and in some others half brothers as well as half sisters

would be excluded according to the presence or absence of full brothers or full sisters as the case may be. In the present case, Ramaswami did not

leave any brother by full blood. The claimants are only two sisters by full blood. On the interpretation sought to be put on behalf of the revision

petitioners, the sister by half blood alone is excluded and the two brothers by half blood are not excluded. Supposing Ramaswami had not left any

sister by full blood but he had left only brother or brothers by full blood then the brothers by half blood would not (?) be excluded. Certainly such a

situation would not be in the contemplation of the Parliament while it enacted Section 18.

I have no doubt that the revision petitioners who are brothers of Ramaswami by half blood are equally excluded just as in the same way as

Veeriammal, the sister by half blood was excluded from inheriting Ramaswami''s estate, as the claimants who are sisters of Ramaswami by full

blood are preferential heirs by virtue of Section 18 of the Act. The civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.