Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a partition suit filed by the children of late Smt. Sushila against her husband regarding a property she had inherited from her father. The trial court excluded the husband from inheritance, holding that a Will propounded by him was not proved. The husband appealed, and during pendency, he died, with a third party claiming under his alleged Will being brought on record. The High Court, in its judgment dated 17.12.2020, dismissed the Will set up by the husband but allowed the appeal in part, holding that succession was governed by Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act and allotted equal shares to the two sons, daughter, and husband. The children then filed this review petition, contending that the property, having been inherited by Smt. Sushila from her father, was governed exclusively by Section 15(2)(a) of the Act, which excludes the husband. They argued this constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The respondent opposed maintainability, contending the issues were already adjudicated and the interpretation adopted was plausible. The court analyzed the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing its limited nature. On the substantive issue, the court examined Sections 15(1)(a) and 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, noting that Section 15(2)(a) applies only when a female Hindu dies without leaving any son or daughter. Since Smt. Sushila left behind two sons and a daughter, the precondition for invoking Section 15(2)(a) was not satisfied. The court found the interpretation in the judgment under review was legally sustainable and did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The court dismissed the review petition, holding no grounds were made out under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Scope and Limitations - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47 Rule 1 - Review petition filed seeking reconsideration of judgment in regular first appeal - Court held review jurisdiction is extremely limited and permissible only for error apparent on face of record, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient analogous reason - Re-appreciation of evidence or re-argument on merits is impermissible in review jurisdiction - Held that no ground made out for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (Paras 9, 13). B) Family Law - Hindu Succession - Inheritance Rights of Husband - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sections 15(1)(a), 15(2)(a) - Dispute regarding succession to property inherited by deceased female Hindu from her father - Petitioners contended husband excluded under Section 15(2)(a) - Court held Section 15(2)(a) applies only when female Hindu dies without leaving any son or daughter - Since deceased left two sons and daughter, succession governed by Section 15(1)(a) which includes husband - Held that husband not excluded from inheritance (Paras 10-11).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in R.F.A. No.1867/2007 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, particularly regarding the applicability of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to exclude the husband from inheritance
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Review Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
