Sister cannot claim brother’s property while widow is alive: HC

A sister cannot claim to be a reversioner to her Hindu brother’s property while his widow is alive, the High Court has ruled, clarifying a key aspect of inheritance under Hindu Dayabhaga law.

A bench comprising Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal and Justice Md Rafiqul Islam delivered the judgment on July 9, while the full judgment was published on August 12.

The High Court made the observation while rejecting a rule issued in a civil revision petition seeking the right to become a reversioner to a brother’s property.

In the case titled Lily Rani Das and others, heirs of Amar Kumar Das vs Dr Monoranjan Mahuri and others, the court upheld the judgment and decree of the subordinate court.

Justice Md Rafiqul Islam wrote the main judgment. Lawyer Samiran Das Gupta represented the revision petitioner, while lawyer Toufiq Anwar Chowdhury appeared for the defendant.

The case involved 1.35 acres of land in Patiya upazila of Chittagong.

According to the case details, Ramakanta Biswas, a Patiya resident, had one son and three daughters. In 1920, he purchased the disputed land with his own money in the name of his son, Satish Chandra Biswas.

Satish died during his father’s lifetime, while Ramakanta died in 1933.
After Ramakanta’s death, his daughter Shaul Bala Das claimed ownership of the property as an heir. Meanwhile, Satish’s widow, Sabitri Bala, sold the land to Dr Monoranjan Mahuri in 1996 while she was alive.

Shaul Bala Das filed a civil suit before the Patiya court in 1998, claiming inheritance over the property. She alleged that the sale deed was forged and fraudulent and had been executed without legal necessity.

The Patiya Subordinate Judge’s Court dismissed the suit on June 22, 2000, after examining the evidence.

Shaul Bala subsequently appealed to the Chittagong District Judge’s Court. The 1st Additional District Judge of Chittagong dismissed the appeal on September 23, 2007.

She then filed a civil revision petition before the High Court in 2008 under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the appellate court’s judgment and decree. The High Court issued a rule the same year.

The rule was taken up for hearing this year, and the High Court rejected it on July 9, upholding the lower courts’ judgment and decree.

In its observations, the High Court said that under Hindu Dayabhaga law, a sister has no right to inherit her brother’s property during the lifetime of his widow.

The court said that following her husband’s death, a widow acquires rights over her husband’s property during her lifetime, although her power to transfer such property is limited.

If a widow transfers such property, only a person legally entitled to succeed to it after her death — known as a “reversioner” — can challenge the legal validity of the transfer, according to the judgment.
A person with no present or future legal interest in the property cannot challenge such a transfer, the court said.

It further observed that a person without a legal right to the property cannot file a case or challenge its transfer merely on the ground that it was not made out of “legal necessity.”