Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss. 6 and 8 – Share in the property – A land was owned and possessed by one ‘S’ – S’ had two sons ‘J’ and ‘P’ – ‘J’ had two sons defendant No. 4 and father of the appellant-plaintiff – Appellant’s father predeceased ‘J’ (his father) and ‘S’ (his grandfather) – He died in 1957, whereas ‘J’ died in 1982 and ‘S’ in 1965 – Appellant’s father left behind his wife and daughter-appellant – After the death of ‘S’, his two sons ‘J’ & ‘P’ partitioned the suit property and result of which, the suit property came to the exclusive share of ‘J’ and had become the absolute owner thereof, on basis of which right, he (‘J’) executed registered sale deed in favour of his three grandsons (sons of defendant No. 4) – Appellant instituted suit and sought share in the property – The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court – The Appellate Court, however, reversed the conclusion reached by the Trial Court and ordered appellant to obtain possession over the half share of the disputed land – Aggrieved, respondents-defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed second appeal before the High Court – The High Court set aside the Judgment of the Appellate Court and affirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court – On appeal, held: After the death of ‘S’ in 1965, the property devolved upon his two sons ‘J’ and ‘P’ – They succeeded and partitioned property between themselves – As a result property came into exclusive share of ‘J’ – The father of appellant-plaintiff had predeceased his father ‘J’ and even his grandfather ‘S’ – During the life time of ‘J’, father of appellant could not have succeeded to the property and for the same reason, the appellant being his daughter cannot be heard to claim any right higher than that of her father – Therefore, applying the settled legal position to the present case, the view taken by the High Court upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Considering to the factual matrix of the present case, it is noticed that ‘S’ had inherited ancestral property and was alive till 1965. The father of appellant-plaintiff, predeceased him in 1957. The father of appellant was the son of ‘J’. ‘J’ died in 1982. During the life time of ‘J’, in terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 appellant’s father could not have succeeded to the property as he could claim only through ‘J’. ‘J’, however, was alive till 1982. If appellant’s father himself had no claim in his own rights, the question of appellant, being his daughter, succeeding to the property does not arise. [Para 19] [136-E-F]
2. The consistent view of this Court, is that the grand son or grand daughter is clearly excluded from heirs in Class-I. Appellant’s father himself was grand son of ‘S’, who predeceased ‘S’. After the demise of ‘S’ in 1965, therefore, the ancestral suit property could be and came to be partitioned between ‘J’ and ‘P’ in 1967. As a result of that partition, the suit property came to the exclusive share of ‘J’ in his individual capacity. He could, therefore, legitimately dispose of the same in the manner he desired and which he did in favour of his grandsons (defendant Nos.1 to 3 respectively) vide registered sale deed dated 21 st July, 1979. Neither the stated partition of 1967 nor the registered sale deed in favour of respondents (defendant Nos.1 to 3) dated 21st July, 1979 has been challenged. The relief sought in the suit as filed by the appellant/plaintiff is only for partition and awarding share to the appellant/plaintiff alongwith possession. Suffice it to observe that, the grand-daughter of ‘Janakram’ (appellant) could not have claimed a higher right than the right of her father. [Para 20] [136-G-H; 137-A-B]
State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram (Dead) Through Gurbax Rai (1969) 2 SCC 33 : [1969] 3 SCR 51 ; Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others v. Chander Sen and Others (1986) 3 SCC 567 ;
Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204 : [1987]
1 SCR 516 ; Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Others (2008) 7 SCC 46 : [2008] 7 SCR 1 – relied on.
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa
Magdum and Others (1978) 3 SCC 383 : [1978] 3
SCR 761 ; Ramesh Verma (Dead) Through Legal
Representatives v. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) By Legal Representatives and Another (2017) 1 SCC 257 ; Smt. Raj Rani v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Delhi and Others (1984) 3 SCC 619 : [1984] 3 SCR 763 –
referred to.
Chandrakanta and Others v. Ashok Kumar and Others 2002 (3) MPLJ 576 – 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.