Brother Cannot Claim Deceased Hindu Woman's Estate Over Husband's Heirs U/S 15 Hindu Succession Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act has not been declared unconstitutional and continues to govern succession to the property of a female Hindu. The Court observed that in the absence of any declaration by a Division Bench or the Supreme Court, the provision remains applicable and must be followed.

Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla was hearing an interim application filed in a suit by the plaintiff, who is the brother of the deceased, seeking to administer her estate and restrain the defendants from dealing with her assets. The plaintiff claimed that he was the sole surviving relative of the deceased and entitled to succeed to her estate.

The deceased, a Hindu woman, had passed away on 31 May 2025, leaving behind a will dated 10 April 2023 appointing defendant No.1 as executrix and making various bequests. The plaintiff challenged the will and a gift deed executed in favour of defendant No.1, and sought interim relief. The defendant contended that even if the will and gift deed were ignored, the plaintiff had no entitlement under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the deceased's husband's sister, being an heir of the husband, would take precedence over the plaintiff.

The Court examined Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act and held that the statutory scheme clearly provides the order of succession for a female Hindu dying intestate. It noted that heirs falling in an earlier entry exclude those in subsequent entries. Applying this, the Court held that the deceased's husband's sister, being an heir under entry (b), would exclude the plaintiff, who falls under entry (d), thereby disentitling him from any share in the estate if the deceased had died intestate.

The Court rejected the plaintiff's contention that Section 15(1) had been declared unconstitutional in Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa [(2012) SCC Online Bom 1685]. It was observed that although a Single Judge had expressed such a view, the issue had been referred to a Division Bench and no final declaration of unconstitutionality had been made. It further noted that subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court continue to apply Section 15(1), and therefore, the provision remains valid and operative.

“… the issue of constitutionality of Section 15(1) has to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court and, till then, Section 15(1) cannot be held as unconstitutional,” the Court observed.

The Court also held that recommendations of the Law Commission suggesting an amendment to Section 15(1) have not been implemented by the legislature and therefore cannot affect the applicability of the provision.

On the issue of maintainability, the Court held that the burden was on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie interest in the estate of the deceased to seek interim relief. It found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any such interest under the statutory scheme. The Court further noted that probate of the will had already been granted to defendant No.1, which vested the estate in her from the date of death, and that the plaintiff had not filed a caveat in the probate proceedings.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the interim application.

Case Title: Santsaran Gursaran Advani vs. Nina H. Bhalla & Ors. [Interim Application (L) No. 26854 of 2025 in Suit No. 248 of 2025]

Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 210

Click Here To Read/Download Order