LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/mukatlal-vs-kailash-chand-d-through-lrs-and-ors-20240516/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Mukatlal vs Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. and Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
16 May 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 6460 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Sandeep Mehta
Citation
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 298 : 2024 INSC 428
Acts & Sections
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 298 : 2024 INSC 428
Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to the right of the legal heir of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned Joint Hindu Family property by virtue of s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Headnote

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14(1) – Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property – Right of the legal heir of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned joint hindu family property by virtue of s.14(1), when neither the widow nor her legal heir in possession of the suit land:

Held: For establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate u/s. 14(1), the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription – On going through the pleadings in the Revenue suit for partition filed by legal heir, it is clear that that the widow or the legal heir himself were never in possession of the suit property – As a matter of fact, the suit was filed by pleading that the suit property was a joint Hindu family property and appellantbeneficiary of the unpartitioned estate by way of Will, had consented to give half share of the suit property to the legal heir on his demand – This assertion was denied by appellant – Widow was never in possession of the suit property because the civil suit was filed by her claiming the relief of title as well as possession and the same was dismissed and she was held only entitled to receive maintenance from the undivided estate – This finding of the civil Court was never challenged – Since, widow was never in possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership u/s. 14(1) could not be maintained by her adopted son, plaintiff by virtue of inheritance – Thus, the impugned judgments restoring the judgment and decree of the Revenue Court that the plaintiff being the sole legal heir of the widow has coparcenary rights over the lands belonging to widow’s husband, cannot be sustained and are set aside. [Paras 17, 24-28]

Keywords: Right of succession in the unpartitioned joint hindu family property · Full ownership · Undivided joint family estate · Inheritance or devise · In lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance · Suit for partition · Absolute ownership

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.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Mehta, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal by special leave challenges the final judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1029 of 2006 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant questioning the legality and validity of the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 passed by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1993 was dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Revenue Court. 4. I
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

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.

All SC judgments →