In a ruling on Christian property inheritance, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh allowed an appeal arising out of a property dispute, clarifying that property purchased in the names of a deceased man’s wives legally belongs to the wives and cannot be treated in its entirety as the husband’s estate upon his death. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and held that Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 applies only to the portion of property inherited by the husband upon the death of his wife under Section 35, rather than the entire estate.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to 1959, when Mattus Anthony purchased a plot of land measuring 1,776 square feet (Khasra No. 690/17, area 0.04 acre, in Bilaspur) for a consideration of INR 300 directly in the names of his two wives, Filomina and Shyam Bai. All parties involved are Christian by faith.
Filomina had three children—Robert Anthony, Francina Anthony, and Anjleena Anthony (the plaintiffs)—and died in 1985. Shyam Bai had one son, John Anthony, who predeceased her in 1985. Mattus Anthony died in 1991, while Shyam Bai passed away in 2000.
On August 19, 2002, the legal heirs of John Anthony (Shakuntala and her children, defendants 1 to 5) sold half of the property (888 square feet) to Marium Anthony (defendant 6). This led Filomina’s children to file Civil Suit No. 51-A/2007 before the 5th Civil Judge, Class I, Bilaspur, seeking to declare the sale deed invalid and claim their share.
Decisions of the Trial Courts
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that no mutual partition had taken place and that a sale deed executed without the consent of co-owners was invalid. It declared the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 entitled to vacant possession from defendant 6 and awarded each plaintiff a 1/4th share.
On appeal, the 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, set aside the Trial Court’s decree. The First Appellate Court held that because Mattus Anthony purchased the land from his own income in the names of both wives, the property belonged to their legal heirs rather than being ancestral property. It held both wives entitled to a half share each and concluded that defendants 1 to 5, as legal heirs of John Anthony, were entitled to Shyam Bai’s half share, making the sale deed valid.
When the matter reached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Second Appeal No. 290 of 2009, the High Court considered whether one or both wives could succeed to the property. Referencing the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Shephali Chatterjee & Ors. v. Kamla Banerjee & Ors., the High Court concluded that the term “widow” in Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act covers both widows, granting them together a 1/3rd share. Furthermore, relying on a Calcutta High Court decision in In the Goods of Sarah Ezra, deceased, which held that a lineal descendant must be an offspring of a lawful marriage, the High Court determined that John Anthony did not qualify as a lineal descendant of Mattus Anthony. Consequently, the High Court allocated 2/3rd of the property to Filomina’s children as the sole lineal descendants.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, the original defendants (appellants) contended that the High Court had incorrectly applied the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to the dispute. During the proceedings, Senior Counsel Mr. Gaurav Agrawal cited the precedent of Valliammal v. Subramaniam, submitting that “intention of the parties is the essence of the benami transaction and the money must have been provided by the party invoking the doctrine of benami.” It was submitted that Mattus Anthony purchased the property out of love and affection for the benefit of his two wives.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Sections 25, 33, 35, and 38 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The Court noted the statutory definition of lineal consanguinity under Section 25: “Lineal consanguinity is that which subsists between two persons, one of whom is descended in a direct line from the other, as between a man and his father, grandfather and great-grandfather, and so downwards in the direct descending line.”
Regarding Section 33, which provides: “Where intestate has left widow and lineal descendants, or widow and kindred only, or widow and no kindred. – Where the intestate has left a widow– (a) if he has also left any lineal descendants, one-third of his property shall belong to his widow, and the remaining two-thirds shall go to his lineal descendants, according to the rules hereinafter contained…”
The Supreme Court observed that for Section 33 to apply, the deceased person regarding whom succession is disputed must be a male who died intestate. Because Mattus Anthony purchased the property squarely in the names of his two wives, the property legally belonged to them. The High Court’s application of Section 33 to the entire property was misplaced because it treated the property as belonging to Mattus Anthony, whereas the whole property never rested in his name.
The Bench explained that because Filomina predeceased Mattus Anthony in 1985, Section 35 of the Act governed her half share: “Rights of widower. -A husband surviving his wife has the same rights in respect of her property, if she dies intestate, as a widow has in respect of her husband’s property, if he dies intestate.”
As a result, upon Filomina’s death, 1/3rd of her half share devolved upon Mattus Anthony, while the remaining 2/3rd went to her successors-in-interest (the plaintiffs). The 1/3rd share received by Mattus Anthony from Filomina’s portion then devolved upon his children across both marriages (the three plaintiffs and John Anthony). The defendants, as children of John Anthony, would receive portions only out of the 1/5th share that fell to John Anthony, while the 1/5th share received by Shyam Bai through Mattus Anthony would assimilate into her property.
For the half share directly in the name of Shyam Bai, the Court held that upon her intestate death, Section 38 of the Act governed the distribution: “Where intestate has left no child, but grandchild or grandchildren. Where the intestate has not left surviving him any child but has left a grandchild or grandchildren and no more remote descendant through a deceased grandchild, the property shall belong to his surviving grandchild if there is one, or shall be equally divided among all his surviving grandchildren.”
The Court clarified that there is no concept of joint family property under Hindu law applicable to the parties, and property inherited under Christian law is held as tenants-in-common.
The Court further noted that issues regarding benami transactions and the validity of Mattus Anthony’s second marriage were not pressed by any party, and Shyam Bai’s status as wife and widow was not in dispute.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and the lower courts. All consequences are to follow, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Shakuntala & Ors. v. Robert Anthony & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9449 of 2020)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Date: July 30, 2026
