Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.15 – Succession – Properties inherited by female Hindus – “Family” – Family settlement – ‘J’, a widow inherited share of her late husband in the land in question – Family settlement – She gave said share to her nephews-respondents (her brother’s sons) – Respondents filed suit against ‘J’ claiming decree of declaration as owners in possession thereof – Respondents’ claim accepted by her, consent decree passed in favour of respondents – Appellants (descendants of J’s late husband’s brother) filed suit inter alia for declaring the decree invalid – Dismissed – First and second appeals were also dismissed – Held: s.15(1)(d) indicates that heirs of the father of a female are covered in the heirs who can succeed – Thus, it cannot be held that the respondents who were J’s nephews were strangers and not the members of the family qua her – Further, she was the absolute owner when she entered into settlement – All the Courts rightly dismissed the suit of the appellants, which need no interference – Indian Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(2)(vi).
Indian Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(1)(b), 17(2)(vi) – Consent decree passed on the basis of family settlement, if required registration – Held: Issue in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. v. Rajkumar & Ors. reported as 2020(3) SCALE 146 wherein it was held that since the decree which was sought to be exhibited was with regard to the property which was subject matter of suit, hence, was not covered by exclusionary clause of s.17(2) (vi) and did not require registration – In the present case also, the consent decree related to the subject matter of the suit, thus was not required to be registered u/s.17(2)(vi) – Courts below rightly held that the decree did not require registration.
Words & Phrases – “Family” – Concept of – Discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 There is no dispute that in the earlier Civil Suit No.317 of 1991 in which consent decree was passed on 19.08.1991, the subject matter of suit was the agricultural land situated in Village Garhi, Bajidpur. Further the suit was decreed on the written statement filed by Smt. ‘J’ (the widow) accepting the claim of plaintiffs that there was family settlement between the parties in which the half share in the land was given to the plaintiffs of Civil Suit No.317 of 1991. [Para 12][1027-E-F]
1.2 In Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. Vs. Rajkumar & Ors. this Court held that since the decree which was sought to be exhibited was with regard to the property which was subject matter of suit, hence, was not covered by exclusionary clause of Section 17(2) (vi) and decree did not require registration. The issue in the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. In view of the fact that the consent decree dated 19.08.1991 relate to the subject matter of the suit, hence it was not required to be registered under Section 17(2) (vi). The consent decree dated 19.08.1991 was not registrable and Courts below rightly held that the decree did not require registration. [Para 20][1036-G-H; 1037A] Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. v. Rajkumar & Ors. 2020
(3) SCALE 146 – relied on.
2.1 It is necessary to find out what is the concept of family with regard to which a family settlement could be entered. Every party taking benefit under a family settlement must be related to one another in some way and have a possible claim to the property or a claim or even a semblance of a claim. Term “family” has to be understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes successionis. [Paras 22, 23][1037-C-D; 1038-A-B]
Ram Charan Das v. Girjanandini Devi and Ors. [1965]
3 SCR 841; Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119 : [1976] 3 SCR 202 – relied on.
2.2 The defendants-respondents were nephews, i.e., brother’s sons of Smt. ‘J’. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 15, deals with the general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus for properties inherited by female Hindus, which are devolved in according to Sections 15 and 16. A perusal of Section 15(1)(d) indicates that heirs of the father are covered in the heirs, who could succeed. When heirs of father of a female are included as person who can possibly succeed, it cannot be held that they are strangers and not the members of the family qua the female. ‘Smt. J’, who as a widow of ‘SS’, who had died in 1953, had succeeded to half share in the agricultural land and she was the absolute owner when she entered into settlement. No merit in the submission that the defendants-respondents were strangers to the family. All the Courts have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants, which need no interference. [Paras 26-29][1042-F-G; 1043-B-E]
Mata Deen v. Madan Lal & Ors. Decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 890 of 2008 – held
inapplicable.
K. Raghunandan and Ors. v. Ali Hussain Sabir and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 102 : [2008] 8 SCR 657 – relied on. Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 709 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 466, Som Dev and Ors. v. Rati Ram and Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 788 : [2006]
5 Suppl. SCR 778 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.