A Hindu male died in 1987 leaving son, daughter, father, grandson's widow. Divide his property.

Identifying the Heirs and Their Categories

The intestate, a Hindu male, died in 1987. The survivors are:

1. Son (S) — Class I heir

2. Daughter (D) — Class I heir

3. Father (F) — Class II heir (Category I)

4. Grandson's widow (GsW) — a potential heir whose classification requires careful analysis

The year of death is 1987. The Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 was not yet in force. Therefore, the position must be determined under the original Hindu Succession Act, 1956, without the benefit of the 2005 amendments.

The Crucial Question: Who is the Grandson's Widow?

The phrase "grandson's widow" in this context means the widow of a predeceased grandson — specifically, the widow of the intestate's son's predeceased son (putramrita-pautra-patni in classical parlance). Under the Schedule to the original Act, the Class I heirs include, among others, the widow of a predeceased son and the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. The latter — the widow of a son's predeceased son — is explicitly enumerated as a Class I heir.

The grandson's widow here falls within this category. The relevant inquiry is whether she satisfies two conditions: first, that her husband (the grandson) predeceased the intestate; and second, that she had not remarried on the date the succession opened — the date of the intestate's death. The original Section 24, which was operative in 1987, expressly disqualified the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son if she had remarried before the succession opened. Assuming she had not remarried, she qualifies as a Class I heir.

The Father's Position — A Critical Exclusion

This is the point where many students go wrong. The father of a male intestate is not a Class I heir. He sits as the first entry in Class II. The rule under Section 9 is absolute: so long as a single Class I heir is present, the father is excluded entirely. In the present case, there are at least three Class I heirs — the son, the daughter, and the grandson's widow. The father therefore gets nothing.

The Supreme Court's interpretation has been consistent on this point. The placement of the father in Class II, to the exclusion of Class I heirs, was a conscious departure from Mitakshara orthodoxy where the father was considered to have propinquity superior to the widow. Under the Act, the mother was elevated to Class I while the father was left behind in Class II — a deliberate policy choice that many scholars have criticised as anomalous, but which remains the settled law.

Computing the Shares

Having identified the Class I heirs — son, daughter, and grandson's widow — we now turn to Section 10. The rules of distribution operate as follows:

• Each son and daughter takes one share (Rule 2)

• The widow of the intestate takes one share — but here there is no widow of the intestate himself

• The grandson's widow inherits not in her own direct right but through the branch of the predeceased son and predeceased grandson

This requires the application of Rule 3 of Section 10, which deals with the branch mechanism. The grandson's widow can inherit only if her husband's father (i.e., a son of the intestate) also predeceased the intestate. If the intestate's son is still alive, then the grandson's widow cannot represent a branch at all — because the "branch of the predeceased son" is only activated when the intermediate son himself is dead. A grandson's widow steps into the picture only when both the son and the grandson are dead, and the grandson is the one through whom she is connected.

The question therefore hinges on a factual reading. Reading the problem carefully: the intestate died leaving a living son, a living daughter, a father, and a grandson's widow. If the son is alive, the question arises — whose grandson was the widow married to? If the living son had a son (the intestate's grandson) who predeceased the intestate, then that grandson's widow is the widow of a predeceased son of a living son. Under the original Class I schedule, the enumerated heir is specifically "widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son" — meaning both the son and the grandson must be dead for her to step in as a Class I heir under that entry. If only the grandson is dead but the son is alive, she does not fall within any Class I category.

The more compelling interpretation of the problem is that the "grandson" refers to the son's son who has predeceased, while the son himself is still alive. In that case, the grandson's widow is not a Class I heir under the original 1956 Act, and would be wholly excluded.

Distribution — On Either Interpretation

If the grandson's widow is NOT a Class I heir (son is alive, only grandson predeceased):

The property divides equally between the son and daughter, with the father and the grandson's widow both excluded.

If the grandson's widow IS a Class I heir (both son and grandson predeceased, only the daughter and the grandson's widow survive as Class I heirs, the "son" in the problem being a different Class I heir):

Under Rule 3 of Section 10, the branch of the predeceased son is allocated one share equal to a living son's share. The grandson's widow takes that one share. Meanwhile, the living son and the daughter each take one share.

The Governing Principle

The father's exclusion in both scenarios is absolute and non-negotiable — the presence of even one Class I heir is sufficient to exclude him entirely. This stands as one of the most striking features of the Act. Under classical Mitakshara law, the father was ranked among the sapindas with high preference, but Parliament, in enacting the Hindu Succession Act, consciously preferred the widow of a deceased grandson over the living father of the intestate. As Paras Diwan observes, this anomaly has attracted scholarly criticism, but it reflects the legislature's firm resolution to prioritise the nuclear family of the intestate over his patrilineal ancestors.

The grandson's widow, provided she had not remarried on the date of succession, inherits as a Class I heir when both the relevant son and grandson predeceased the intestate — a reminder that the widow enters the family through marriage and remains entitled to represent her deceased husband's branch in the distribution of ancestral wealth.