- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Neelam v. Sada Ram
Factual and Procedural Background
This suit arises from the plaintiffs’ claim to a share in properties inherited by their grandfather (defendant No. 1) from his father. The plaintiffs assert that these properties are ancestral, and that their father had a birthright share which devolved upon them and their mother (defendant No. 6) after his death. Defendants No. 2 to 5 are the grandfather’s daughters and paternal aunts of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim partition with defendants No. 1 to 5 holding 1/6th share each, and the plaintiffs together with defendant No. 6 holding the remaining 1/6th share. The grandfather’s father died in 1974, and the suit challenges the nature of the property and rights of inheritance accordingly. The suit was heard on this aspect after several adjournments, and the plaintiffs raised no procedural objections during arguments.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the properties inherited by the grandfather from his father in 1974 qualify as ancestral properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- Whether the plaintiffs, as descendants, have a birthright share in the said properties by virtue of their father’s interest.
- Whether the plaintiffs’ claim to the properties as joint family property or ancestral property is maintainable absent proof of a coparcenary or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) existing prior to the Hindu Succession Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments
- The plaintiffs contend that the properties are ancestral, inherited by their grandfather from his father, and that their father had a birthright share which devolved upon them and their mother after his death.
- The plaintiffs rely on the notion that the properties are joint family properties that have never been divided by metes and bounds.
- They relied on the judgment in Om Prakash Gulshan v. J.D Gulshan (AIR 2005 Delhi 360 (DB)), particularly para 14, to support their claim.
Defendants' Arguments
- The defendants argued that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the concept of ancestral property as previously understood was abolished, and property inherited by a male from his father is deemed self-acquired, not ancestral.
- The defendants relied on precedents including Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen (AIR 1986 SC 1753), Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (AIR 1987 SC 558), Master Daljit Singh v. S. Dara Singh (AIR 2000 Delhi 292), and Pratap v. Shiv Shanker (164 (2009) DLT 479) to support this position.
- They emphasized that the plaintiffs have not pleaded any coparcenary or existence of an HUF, which is necessary to claim a share under the exception in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753 | Post-Hindu Succession Act, property inherited from father is self-acquired, not ancestral. | Supported the principle that children do not acquire birthright shares in such property. |
| Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, AIR 1987 SC 558 | Clarified the abolition of ancestral property concept post-1956 Act. | Reinforced that inherited property is self-acquired and not subject to birthright claims. |
| Master Daljit Singh v. S. Dara Singh, AIR 2000 Delhi 292 | Clarification on the status of ancestral property claims under current law. | Referenced to dispel misconceptions about ancestral property claims. |
| Pratap v. Shiv Shanker, 164 (2009) DLT 479 | Further authority on the non-existence of birthright in inherited property post-1956 Act. | Used to affirm defendants’ position regarding property classification. |
| Om Prakash Gulshan v. J.D Gulshan, AIR 2005 Delhi 360 (DB) | Para 14 relates to coparcenary rights. | Distinguished by the court as inapplicable because plaintiffs did not plead coparcenary. |
| Sathyaprema Manjunatha Gowda (Smt) v. Controller Of Estate Duty, Karnataka, (1997) 10 SCC 684 | Distinction between HUF and coparcenary under Hindu law. | Clarified that HUF and coparcenary are not the same and succession law applies unless coparcenary exists. |
| Premwati v. Bhagwati Devi, MANU/DE/4784/2012 | Requirement to plead existence of HUF prior to Hindu Succession Act for claims outside the Act. | Applied to highlight absence of such pleading by plaintiffs, rendering their claim untenable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by noting that the grandfather’s father died in 1974, after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, which abolished the concept of ancestral property as it existed before. Under the Act, property inherited by a male from his father is considered self-acquired, and children of that male do not acquire birthright shares in it. Consequently, the father of the plaintiffs had no share in the property inherited by the grandfather, and thus the plaintiffs cannot inherit any share from their father.
The court distinguished the plaintiffs’ reliance on the Om Prakash Gulshan case, emphasizing that it dealt with coparcenary rights, which the plaintiffs have not pleaded. The plaintiffs’ claim rested solely on the properties being ancestral or joint family properties, without any foundation of a coparcenary or HUF existing before the Act. The court clarified that joint family property as a concept does not automatically imply existence of a coparcenary or HUF.
Relying on authoritative precedents, the court reaffirmed that the law of succession post-1956 is governed by the Hindu Succession Act unless a coparcenary existed prior to the Act, which was not the case here. The plaintiffs’ suit was therefore held to be misconceived and not maintainable.
The court also noted that although no preliminary issue was framed on this question, the matter was argued extensively and no procedural objections were raised by the plaintiffs.
Holding and Implications
The suit is dismissed.
The interim order dated 4 June, 2010 is vacated, and the decree sheet is to be drawn up accordingly. The decision directly affects the parties by rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim to ancestral property shares in the grandfather’s inherited properties. No new precedent is established beyond reaffirming settled law under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also recorded that the mother of the plaintiffs (defendant No. 6) may continue to reside in the house with defendant No. 1, unaffected by this suit.
No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. This suit is predicated on the fact that the two plaintiffs have a share in the properties inherited by their grandfather (defendant No. 1) from his own father. The entire case of the plaintiffs is that the said properties are thus ‘ancestral properties’ in the hands of their grandfather defendant No. 1 and in which the father of the plaintiffs had a share by birth and which share, upon the death of their father devolved on the plaintiffs and their mother (defendant No. 6). The plaintiffs thus claim partition. The defendants No. 2 to 5 are the paternal aunts of the plaintiffs and the daughters of the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 to 5 have 1/6th share each and the plaintiffs and defendant No. 6 together have remaining 1/6 share in the said properties.
2. It has at the outset been enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs as to when the father of the grandfather of the plaintiffs died. He is informed to have died in the year 1974.
3. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 enacted more than half a century ago did away with the concept of ancestral properties, as existed prior thereto. After the coming into force thereof, the property inherited by a male from his father is held as self acquired property in which children of such male do not acquire any right by birth. Reference in this regard can be made to Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, AIR 1987 SC 558. The counsel for defendants No. 1 to 5 in this regard has also referred to Master Daljit Singh v. S. Dara Singh, AIR 2000 Delhi 292 and Pratap v. Shiv Shanker, 164 (2009) DLT 479. However the popular misconception of ‘ancestral properties’ continues to hold field, as is apparent from plethora of claims, even in courts, being made on the said premise.
4. Thus, the properties inherited by the grandfather of the plaintiffs on the demise of his own father in the year 1974, were held by him as his personal properties and in which his son i.e the father of the plaintiffs did not acquire any share. Axiomatically, the question of the plaintiffs inheriting any such share on demise of their father does not arise.
5. The counsel for the plaintiffs has relied on Om Prakash Gulshan v. J.D Gulshan, AIR 2005 Delhi 360 (DB), particularly to para 14 thereof. However the said para 14 refers to the case of a coparcenary. On the contrary the case of the plaintiffs is merely on the basis of the properties being ancestral properties. No case of any coparcenary of grandfather and father of the plaintiffs is pleaded.
6. The counsel for the plaintiffs, faced therewith, has invited attention to para No. 15 of the plaint, where it has been mentioned “that the cause of action first arose when the plaintiffs had acquired share in the ancestral/joint family properties…..”.
7. However, what the plaintiffs say therein becomes clear from para No. 14 of the plaint, where it is mentioned that “the said ancestral properties are the joint family properties which have never been divided by metes and bounds….”. The claim of the plaintiffs of the properties being joint family properties is thus based only on the factum of the same being ancestral properties in the hands of their grandfather and not on the factum of there being any coparcenary or HUF in existence and of which no foundation whatsoever is laid in the plaint.
8. A plea of the property being ‘Joint Family Property’ owing to being jointly owned by members of a family is not the plea of existence of a coparcenary or a HUF. The Supreme Court in Sathyaprema Manjunatha Gowda (Smt) v. Controller Of Estate Duty, Karnataka, Karnataka(1997) 10 SCC 684 held that even HUF & coparcenary are not one and the same under the Hindu law though for the purposes of taxation under the taxation laws are treated as one and the same. The law of succession after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act is governed thereby only. Of course, Section 6 thereof carved out an exception qua interest held by the deceased in a Mitakshara coparcenary property and provides that such interest shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with the Act. However, it is not the case of the plaintiff that there was any coparcenary of which their grandfather, his father and the plaintiff's father were a member. This Court recently in Premwati v. Bhagwati Devi MANU/DE/4784/2012 held that for a case for claiming a share in the property otherwise than under the Hindu Succession Act, it has to be pleaded that there existed an HUF since prior to coming into force of the Succession Act and which HUF by virtue of Section 6 of the Act has been permitted to continue. There is no such plea in the present case also.
9. The suit is therefore clearly misconceived and not maintainable.
10. It may be clarified that though no preliminary issue on the aforesaid aspect has been framed but as far back as on 31st July, 2012 arguments on this aspect were ordered to be heard and the matter has been adjourned several times thereafter for the said purpose and the counsel for the plaintiffs has also proceeded to argue and has not raised any procedural objection.
11. The suit is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 4 June, 2010 also stands vacated. Decree sheet be drawn up.
12. It is however worthwhile to record statement of the counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 5 that the mother of the plaintiffs (defendant No. 6) continues to reside with the defendant No. 1 in the same house and this misconceived action on the part of the plaintiffs will not be allowed to come in the way of the said defendant No. 6 continuing to so reside in the house.
No costs.
Alert