X a Kshatriya male died leaving two wives (Kshatriya & Brahmin), two sons by each wife, adopted son, daughter, mother. How would you distribute the property?

Identifying the Heirs

X, a Kshatriya male, dies intestate. He leaves behind the following survivors:

1. Wife W₁ — the Kshatriya wife (valid marriage)

2. Wife W₂ — the Brahmin wife (valid marriage, pre-1955)

3. S₁ and S₂ — two sons by W₁

4. S₃ and S₄ — two sons by W₂

5. AS — an adopted son

6. D — a daughter

7. M — the mother

The crucial preliminary question is whether both wives are entitled to succeed. The Hindu Succession Act defines "widow" as the spouse of a perfectly valid marriage. Since both marriages were solemnised before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force, polygamous marriages contracted prior to that Act remain valid. Both W₁ and W₂ are therefore legally wedded wives, and both qualify as Class I heirs.

The Adopted Son's Position

The adopted son stands on precisely the same footing as a natural-born son. Section 8.9 of the Act makes it clear that the expressions "son" and "daughter" in the Schedule include persons related by adoption, since adoption under Hindu law operates as a notional birth in the adoptive family. The Supreme Court's position, flowing from the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, is that the adopted child "shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes." AS is therefore a son in every legal sense, equal in entitlement to S₁, S₂, S₃, and S₄.

Applicability of Section 18 — Full Blood vs. Half Blood

Before computing shares, a critical structural question must be answered. The sons by W₁ and the sons by W₂ share the same father but are born of different mothers. This makes them half-brothers to each other — related by half blood under Section 3(e)(i) of the Act. The daughter D, the mother M, and the adopted son AS will each have their own relationship with the parties.

However, Section 18 provides that preference of full blood over half blood operates only when heirs stand in the same relationship to the intestate and when the nature of that relationship is the same "in every other respect." Here, all sons — whether by W₁, W₂, or by adoption — stand in the identical legal relationship to X: they are all "sons" under Class I of the Schedule. The question therefore arises whether S₁ and S₂ (full brothers inter se, and sons of W₁) should be preferred over S₃ and S₄ (sons of W₂ and half-brothers to S₁ and S₂).

Section 18 would apply if the heirs are competing in the same relationship to the intestate. All four natural sons bear the same relationship — son. The Bombay High Court's Full Bench ruling, confirmed by the Supreme Court, settled that a full-blood heir excludes a half-blood heir only when their relationship with the intestate differs in that dimension. But here the question is slightly different: S₁ and S₂ are not half-blood sons of X — they are his full sons from W₁, and S₃ and S₄ are his full sons from W₂. Each son has a full-blood relationship with X himself — the half-blood distinction arises between the sons inter se, not between each son and the father. Therefore, Section 18 does not exclude any son. All four sons, the adopted son, and the daughter inherit simultaneously as Class I heirs.

Computing the Shares — Section 10 Rules

The property is to be distributed among Class I heirs. The applicable heads are:

• Both widows together → one share (Rule 1: if there are more widows than one, all widows together take one share)

• Each surviving son (S₁, S₂, S₃, S₄, and AS) → one share each (Rule 2)

• Daughter D → one share (Rule 2)

• Mother M → one share (Rule 2)

Counting the shares:

• Widows together: 1 share

• S₁: 1 share

• S₂: 1 share

• S₃: 1 share

• S₄: 1 share

• AS (adopted son): 1 share

• D: 1 share

• M: 1 share

Total: 8 shares

Each share therefore equals 1/8 of the estate.

The Widows' Position — An Important Nuance

The two widows, between themselves, divide the one share equally, each taking 1/16. This rule is expressly stated in Rule 1 of Section 10 — it is a deliberate legislative policy that multiple widows do not multiply the widow's share; the pooled share remains equal to one son's share, and is then divided among the widows. This rule was plainly designed for pre-1955 polygamous marriages, and it applies here on all fours.

It is worth noting that a wife of a void second marriage (i.e., a marriage contracted after 1955 in violation of the Hindu Marriage Act) would not qualify as a widow for this purpose — as the Andhra Pradesh High Court held in Mallipeddy Sheshaiah v. N. Tulasamma (AIR 2005 AP 221). But since both X's marriages were contracted before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force and were therefore valid, both wives are lawful widows and both inherit.

The Caste Angle — A Non-Issue Under Modern Law

It may be tempting to argue that the difference in caste between the two wives — one Kshatriya, one Brahmin — should produce a difference in succession rights. Under classical Hindu law, caste hierarchy among wives did sometimes affect their respective rights. But the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is a comprehensive codifying statute that has swept away all such customary distinctions. Section 4 of the Act expressly provides that the Act overrides any rule of Hindu law or custom to the contrary. The caste of a widow has no bearing whatsoever on her inheritance rights under modern law.

Summary of Distribution

The estate of X thus devolves in 8 equal shares. Five sons (four natural, one adopted), one daughter, the mother, and both widows together constitute the Class I heirs. The mother of X inherits simultaneously with the sons and daughter — a marked departure from classical Mitakshara law, where the mother did not inherit in the presence of sons. Section 9, read with the Schedule, places her on an equal footing with the surviving children. The Kshatriya caste of X, the mixed-caste character of the marriages, and the fact that one heir is adopted — none of these considerations disturb the clean arithmetic that Section 10 produces.