Admittedly,Sub section (2) (b) provides for the mode of succession to the property of female Hindu which she had inherited from her husband and State s that the property goes to her husband s heirs. However it has to be borne in mind that Cl(b) operates only "in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased.

The deceased here obviously refer to the female Hindu . It is true that the words " notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) " excludes the provision in sub section (1) in so far as the succession of the property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband concerned.

However,the special mode of succession provided in sub section (2) it self restrict s the application of Cl (b) to cases where there is no son or daughter. Where a son or daughter exist s the heirs of the husband can not succeed according to sub section and the property must go to the son or daughter.

The only question is whether the word "son" should be restricted to the "Son " of the husband from whom the Hindu female inherited the property or it should include Hindu female irrespective of whether they are born of the husband. The word "son" should not be restricted to mean a don of the husband whose property is in dispute. From the language used in sub section (1) and (2) ,it is clear the intention of the legislature was to allow succession of the property to the sons and daughters of the Hindu female only in the absence of such heirs the property would go to the husbands heirs.

It is true that the idea of the property of the deceased husband passing to the previous husband's son is not in consonance with the orthodoxy Hindu Law. But that alone can't be a ground for interpreting the unambiguous language of section 15 differently. In scheme of Hindu Succession Act there are many provision s which are contrary to thr orthodox Hindu law. Inspite of this effect has to be given to them. For instance ,it appears that section 15(b) read the definition of the word related in CL ( j) of section 3 will enable an illegitimate son of the Hindu female to succeed to the estate of her Husband in preference to the husbands heir.

This would be against the spirit of strict Hindu Law but the intention to bring about this effect seems to be deliberate. Raghavacharier in his Hindu Law, 5th Edition, states in his commentary of section 15 at page 915 that the sons must necessarily mean the sons by both marriage s and also the daughters of such marriage including the children of any predeceased son or daughter. The learned commentator is thus of the view that the word "son" should be given its natural meaning and not a restricted to confine it to the son of the husband whose property is left by the Hindu female ( Keshri Parmal Lodhi vs Harprasad A.I.R 1971 M.P 129 at p.p 130 /131 1970 jan L.J 779