IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 Bimla Devi (since deceased) through LRs Sunil Dutt & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for the price of dowry articles, 2. status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff” and respondents as the “defendants”. 3. the short question before this Court in the present case is whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the istridhan of whether the plaintiff, would be entitled to the istridhan. per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, it is the would be entitled to the istridhan of her deceased daughter; and not her IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bimla Devi (since deceased) through LRs Vs. Sunil Dutt & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Arun K. Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.75,750/- in forma paupris on account of the price of dowry articles, has been dismissed by both the Courts The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff” and respondents as the “defendants”. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the short question before this Court in the present case is whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the istridhan of whether the defendants/husband and parents would be entitled to the istridhan. Learned counsel submits that as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, it is the would be entitled to the istridhan of her deceased daughter; and not her IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2185-2001(O&M) Date of decision: 02.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Arun K. Bakshi, Advocate in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed in forma paupris on account of has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff” and Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the short question before this Court in the present case is whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the istridhan of her deceased daughter; or and parents-in-law of the daughter of the Learned counsel submits that as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, it is the appellant/plaintiff who would be entitled to the istridhan of her deceased daughter; and not her 7 in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed in forma paupris on account of The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff” and Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the short question before this Court in the present case is whether the deceased daughter; or the daughter of the Learned counsel submits that as appellant/plaintiff who would be entitled to the istridhan of her deceased daughter; and not her SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document husband and in and her family had given dowry by the defendant No.1/husband and his family members including his parents/defendants No.2 and 3 herein. daughter was murdered by the defendants by giving her severe beatings and sprinkling kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. 05.10.1997 in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. After trial, defendant No.1/husband was sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the dowry articles as mentioned in the list attached with the plaint were misappropriate defendants for their own use. It is contended that the defendants have no right to these dowry articles as these form daughter of the appellant daughter of th 4. 5. perused the case file in great detail. 6. appellant. Firstly, as dowry articles worth Rs.75,750/ able to prove bills worth Rs.21,186/ taken into account the clothes given by the plaintiff to the bridegroom and d and in-laws. It is submitted that at the time of marriage, appellant and her family had given dowry articles worth Rs.75,750/ by the defendant No.1/husband and his family members including his parents/defendants No.2 and 3 herein. On daughter was murdered by the defendants by giving her severe beatings and sprinkling kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. After trial, defendant No.1/husband sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the dowry articles as mentioned in the list attached with the plaint were misappropriate for their own use. It is contended that the defendants have no right to these dowry articles as these form daughter of the appellant and were therefore, the exclusive property of the daughter of the plaintiff. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the . Firstly, as per the evidence on record, the plaintiff had not given dowry articles worth Rs.75,750/- at the time of marriage. prove bills worth Rs.21,186/- only. Yet taken into account the clothes given by the plaintiff to the bridegroom and laws. It is submitted that at the time of marriage, appellant articles worth Rs.75,750/- which was taken by the defendant No.1/husband and his family members including his On 29.09.1992, the appellant’s daughter was murdered by the defendants by giving her severe beatings and sprinkling kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. She died on in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. After trial, defendant No.1/husband sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the dowry articles as mentioned in the list attached with the plaint were misappropriated by the for their own use. It is contended that the defendants have no right to these dowry articles as these form part of istridhan of deceased and were therefore, the exclusive property of the made on behalf of the appellant. arned counsel for the appellant and I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the evidence on record, the plaintiff had not given at the time of marriage. The plaintiff was Yet, the learned trial Court had taken into account the clothes given by the plaintiff to the bridegroom and 7 laws. It is submitted that at the time of marriage, appellant which was taken by the defendant No.1/husband and his family members including his ’s daughter was murdered by the defendants by giving her severe beatings She died on in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. After trial, defendant No.1/husband sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the dowry articles as by the for their own use. It is contended that the defendants have no part of istridhan of deceased and were therefore, the exclusive property of the and I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the evidence on record, the plaintiff had not given The plaintiff was , the learned trial Court had taken into account the clothes given by the plaintiff to the bridegroom and SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the bride at the time of marriage worth Rs.33,000/ 7. of her deceased daughter, behind any child. of Section 6 of the Dowry “the Act”) which the bride at the time of marriage; and had accordingly held worth Rs.33,000/- was given at the time of marriage. As regards the entitlement of the plaintiff to the estate of her deceased daughter, admittedly deceased Sharda Rani did not leave behind any child. In this situation, it is necessary to consider Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which stipulates as follows: – “6. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs. (1)Where any dowry is received by any person other woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman (a)if the dowry was received before marriage, within three months after the date of marriage; or (b)if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within three months after the date of its receipt; or (c)if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor, within three months after she has attained the age of eighteen years,and pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman. (2)If any person fails to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, or as required by sub-section (3), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two year shall not be less than five thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Page 3 of 7 had accordingly held that dowry of marriage. As regards the entitlement of the plaintiff to the estate admittedly deceased Sharda Rani did not leave it is necessary to consider the provision Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “6. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.— Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman— if the dowry was received before marriage, within three months after the date of marriage; or if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within three months after the date of its receipt; or when the woman was a minor, within three months after she has attained the age of eighteen years,and pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the transfer any property as required by section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, or as section (3), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years or with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. that dowry As regards the entitlement of the plaintiff to the estate admittedly deceased Sharda Rani did not leave the provision (hereinafter referred to as than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that if the dowry was received before marriage, within three if the dowry was received at the time of or after the when the woman was a minor, within three months after she has attained the age of eighteen years,and pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the transfer any property as required by section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, or as section (3), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six s or with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees, but which may SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. where dowry articles are not handed over to the bride (3)Where the woman entitled to any property under sub section (1) dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to claim it from the person holding it for the time being: Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property shall,— (a)if she has no children, be transferred to her parents; or (b)if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending such transfer, be held in trust (3A)Where a person convicted under sub to transfer any property as required by sub section (3) has not, before his conviction under that sub section, transferred such property to the woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under that sub-section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall transfer the property to such woman or, as the case may be,her heirs, parents or children within such period as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to the value of the property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid to such woman or, as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children. (4)Nothing contained in this section shall af of section 3 or section 4.” Thus, the above provision where dowry articles are not handed over to the bride Where the woman entitled to any property under sub- ceiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to claim it from the person holding it for the time Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property if she has no children, be transferred to her parents; or if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending such transfer, be held in trust for such children. Where a person convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) has not, before his conviction under that sub- section, transferred such property to the woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under that section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall r the property to such woman or, as the case may be,her heirs, parents or children within such period as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to e property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid to such woman or, as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children. Nothing contained in this section shall affect the provisions the above provision would be applicable in cases where dowry articles are not handed over to the bride for whom the said 7 - ceiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to claim it from the person holding it for the time Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property if she has children, be transferred to such children and section (2) for failure - - section, transferred such property to the woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under that section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall r the property to such woman or, as the case may be,her heirs, parents or children within such period as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to e property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid to such woman or, fect the provisions would be applicable in cases for whom the said SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document articles were given dowry articles they were used by the defendants. 9. would come into play which deal by Hindu female. It has been correctly held by the learned Courts below that the dowry articles in the hands of deceased Sharda Rani were her personal self acquired provision of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, property of Hindu female who dies intestate will husband, and then upon her own parents. Act, husband is excluded. child. 10. decree dated 29.01.1998 of the learned trial Court is as follows: articles were given. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that dowry articles were not handed over to the deceased Sharda Rani or that they were used by the defendants. In this situation, Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act would come into play which deals with inheritance of property left behind by Hindu female. It has been correctly held by the learned Courts below that the dowry articles in the hands of deceased Sharda Rani were her self acquired property, and had not been inherited provision of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, property of Hindu female who dies intestate will devolve firstly upon husband and then upon her own parents. However, as per section 25 of the Act, husband is excluded. Admittedly, Sharda Rani had not left behind any In this regard, the relevant decree dated 29.01.1998 of the learned trial Court is as follows: “16. On the other hand, if the dowry articles had been given to Sharda Rani by the in-laws after her marriage, then provisions of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act get attracted which deals with inheritances of property left behind by a Hindu Female. The dowry articles in hands of deceased Sharda Rani were her personal property. As per provisions of Section 15 (1) (Supra), the property of Hindu Female who dies interstate is to devolve firstly, upon heirs of husband and thirdly, upon mother and father and so on. Page 5 of 7 In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that were not handed over to the deceased Sharda Rani or that In this situation, Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act s with inheritance of property left behind by Hindu female. It has been correctly held by the learned Courts below that the dowry articles in the hands of deceased Sharda Rani were her , and had not been inherited. As per provision of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, property of Hindu devolve firstly upon husband/heirs of However, as per section 25 of the y, Sharda Rani had not left behind any relevant Para 16 of the judgment and decree dated 29.01.1998 of the learned trial Court is as follows:- On the other hand, if the dowry articles had been given laws after her marriage, then provisions of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act get attracted which deals with inheritances of property left behind by a articles in hands of deceased Sharda Rani were her personal property. As per provisions of Section 15 (1) (Supra), the property of Hindu Female who dies interstate is to devolve firstly, upon heirs of husband and thirdly, upon mother and father and so on. Admittedly, 7 In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that were not handed over to the deceased Sharda Rani or that In this situation, Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act s with inheritance of property left behind by Hindu female. It has been correctly held by the learned Courts below that the dowry articles in the hands of deceased Sharda Rani were her per provision of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, property of Hindu /heirs of However, as per section 25 of the y, Sharda Rani had not left behind any judgment and SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Sharda Rani did not leave behind any child. Husband who is defendant No. 1 is not entitled to inherit the property left behind by Sharda Rani as per provisions of Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act. The dowry articles given to Sharda Rani was not any such property which she had inherited from her parents but it was her self-acquired property. It was held in Mangat Ram Vs. State of Punjab and others 1988 (2) Crl. Report 349 that mother of the deceased girl cannot claim the dowry articles due to provisions contained in Section 15 (Supra). This decision was based upon another decision of our own Hon'ble High Court reported as Punjab, 1983 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 116, held that dowry / gifts received of property inherited by them from her father and thus succession would confine only with Sub 15, according to the Rules set out in Section 16. Now as mentioned above, it is not the case of the plaintif marriage, Sharda Rani did not receive the dowry articles. There is no dispute that she died intestate. She also did not leave behind any child, husband is disqualified from inheriting property left behind by Sharda Rani. Now as per provisions Section 15 (1) (b), the property so left behind by Sharda Rani is to devolve upon heirs of husband. Admittedly, defendant No. 3 is the mother of husband of Sharda Rani. As per provisions contained in Section 15 (1) (b) (Supra), defendant No. 3 being class I heir of defendant No. 1, husband and deceased is entitled to succeed to the said dowry articles. Decision in case of Mangat Ram (Supra) was followed in unreported Judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in case Sharda Rani did not leave behind any child. Husband who is defendant No. 1 is not entitled to inherit the property left behind by Sharda Rani as per provisions of Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act. The dowry articles given to Sharda Rani not any such property which she had inherited from her acquired property. It was held in Mangat Ram Vs. State of Punjab and others 1988 (2) Recent that mother of the deceased girl cannot claim due to provisions contained in Section 15 (Supra). This decision was based upon another decision of our own Hon'ble High Court reported as Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1983 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 116, in which it was held that dowry / gifts received by bride are not in the nature of property inherited by them from her father and thus succession would confine only with Sub-Section (1) of Section 15, according to the Rules set out in Section 16. Now as mentioned above, it is not the case of the plaintiff that after marriage, Sharda Rani did not receive the dowry articles. There is no dispute that she died intestate. She also did not leave behind any child, husband is disqualified from inheriting property left behind by Sharda Rani. Now as per provisions of Section 15 (1) (b), the property so left behind by Sharda Rani is to devolve upon heirs of husband. Admittedly, defendant No. 3 is the mother of husband of Sharda Rani. As per provisions contained in Section 15 (1) (b) (Supra), defendant ss I heir of defendant No. 1, husband and deceased is entitled to succeed to the said dowry articles. Decision in case of Mangat Ram (Supra) was followed in unreported Judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in case 7 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. or controvert the aforesaid facts above. I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Courts below. 12. 13. 02.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Shubeg Singh Vs State of Punjab Crl. Misl legible)99-M of 1996, passed on 24.4.97. It was held in Mohinder Singh son of Baru Vs. Sukhdehi and others 1995 (3) PLR 493, that the property left behind by a Hindu female who died intestate is to devolve upon her in Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act. It is thus apparent that the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed to the property behind by Sharda Rani. She is therefore, not entitled to recover any amount on account of dowry articles from any of the defendants. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts, findings and the legal position as noted I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Courts below. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Shubeg Singh Vs State of Punjab Crl. Misl. No. 209 (not passed on 24.4.97. It was held in Mohinder Singh son of Baru Vs. Sukhdehi and others 1995 that the property left behind by a Hindu female who died intestate is to devolve upon her heirs as mentioned ion 15 of Hindu Succession Act. It is thus apparent that the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed to the property left behind by Sharda Rani. She is therefore, not entitled to recover any amount on account of dowry articles from any of issue is accordingly decided against the Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute and the legal position as noted I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.04.05 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document