In Yansh Bahadur Sabhajeet Yadav in the matter between Dudhnath Kallu Yadav vs. Ramashankar Ramadhar Yadav and ors., during the pendency of the suit, one of the defendants (No.14), who was said to be one of the coparceners having right to the ancestral property, died and a third-party applicant, named Yansh Bahadur Sabhajit Yadav who claimed to be the stepson of defendant no.14 took out the present application.
It was argued on behalf of the applicant that he deserves to be impleaded as a party in the matter just like the other heirs. The applicant also sought separate share and possession of the 1/9th share that the original defendant (no.14) had in these properties and also a stay on redevelopment of three buildings which are a part of the suit property.
The applicant, who appeared in person, relied on the definition of ‘child’ under clause 15B of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes ‘stepchild’ as well as adopted child. He also submitted that since the word ‘son’ is not defined under the Hindu Succession Act, the definition of ‘child’ under the Income Tax Act should be used.
The court rejecting the claim of the applicant held that rather than the IT Act, under these circumstances where any definition is lacking under an act, the definition provided by the General Clauses Act should be applied and as per the said act the expression “son” includes only an adopted son and not a stepson. Even otherwise “son” as understood in common parlance means a natural son born to a person after marriage. It is the direct blood relationship, which is the essence of the term “son” as normally understood.
Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/stepson-hindu-dying-intestate-cant-claim-inheritance-hindu-succession-act-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Comments
Post a Comment