ethor which is her own.

The self-acquired property of a female would be her absolute

property and not the property which she had igfv of the husband i.e., the respondent in this case
who would be entitled to even the self- ert er g property lsdfeft behind by the deceased wife, and
not her mother. The decision of the Supreme Court in Omparkash is squarely applicable to the
fac ewrf accepted that in recognition of that position when the wife’s succession opened, the class
known as heirs of the husband were permitted to succeed as a result of initial unity in marriage upon
which the female mergesdafd in the family of her husband.” rg

The constitutional validity of Section 15 was discussed by the Court in Srinivasa Aiyar vs
Saraswathi Ammal, it held that ”This enactmentertes operates upon the defined class of people
governed by the given sysdsftem of personal law and thus could not be violative of the
fundamental rights concernedgsd.1 The g sdagcommunity governed by the fsd pefdgrsonal law
itself forms a recognized class within the constitutional contemplation and tfhat itself offers a
reasonable class of persons for testing the given legislation and the same hdsfas to be examined
in the background of the principles by which such class is governed by the tenets of their
personal law. It those principle are otherwise reasonable in the context and sdthe history of the
given system of personal law, then the constitutional cg fdshallenge is hardly sustsdf againable. 2
The scheme set in Section 15(1) itself throws light upon the fafsdfct on principles, on the basis of
w jhhich choice and arrangement of different classes of heirs is dsf, nrgamely, closer blood
relation is preferred ovdsaer agdistant one. Son andsd daughters are closely related blood
relatives, heirs of the husbandfg shows the principle of close knit unity with the hurtjsband, and
hertjr mother and sdafsdfather indicates second group of related family.

Before aasgs sg by thsde fgactors jof sympathy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subha B.
Nair & Ors. vs. State of Kerala 3 has held that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a
guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and
unambiguous.

1
Srinivasa Aiyar vs Saraswathi Ammal, 1951 AIR 1952 Mad 193, (1951) 2 MLJ 649
2
Ibid 6
3
Subha B. Nair & Ors. vs. State of Kerala 2008 (9) SCALE 16
1
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised and arguments advanced, it is most
humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be pleased to:

 Dismiss the petition.

 Hold that the respondent is the rightfully and legally entitled to inherit the deceased’s

property.

And/or pass any other order in the favour of the Respondent, which this Court may deem fit in
the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly submitted.

Date:14th August 2019 Ghulam Mohd Hayderi (1437)

Place: ABC Counsel for Respondent