- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chandrakanta And Another v. Ashok Kumar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 concerning agricultural land bearing survey No. 66 and 94, located at village Badokhar, district Morena. The property was originally purchased in the name of Madangopal by a registered sale deed dated 21-7-1944. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 3 are sons of Madangopal, while respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are his grandsons, claiming rights through their father/respondent No. 3. The suit alleged that the property was purchased from joint family funds derived from retiral benefits received by Thakurdas, Madangopal's father, upon retirement from Calcutta Jute Mill. Both lower courts granted injunctions in favor of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. This revision petition challenges those injunction orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, as grandsons born after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, have a right, title, or interest in the suit property during the lifetime of their father/respondent No. 3.
- Whether the injunction granted by the lower courts was legally sustainable in light of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and relevant Supreme Court precedents.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur etc. v. Chander Sen etc., (1986) 3 SCC 567 : AIR 1986 SC 1753 | Interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly Section 8, regarding inheritance rights of sons and grandsons. | The Court relied on this precedent to establish that under the 1956 Act, a son's son (grandson) does not inherit by birthright during the lifetime of the father, thereby excluding respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from rights in the property while their father is alive. |
| Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 : AIR 1987 SC 558 | Clarification on the impact of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on the coparcenary rights and the concept of birthright in Hindu law. | The Court applied this ruling to affirm that after the Act, a son’s inheritance rights arise only after the death of the father, negating the birthright theory and supporting the revision petitioner's position. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the facts in light of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and relevant Supreme Court judgments. It noted that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were born well after the Act came into force in 1956, which altered the traditional Hindu law inheritance principles. Specifically, the Court referred to authoritative rulings clarifying that the birthright theory no longer applies; a son acquires interest in property only after the death of his father. Since the father (respondent No. 3) is still alive and Madangopal (the original owner) has expired, the grandsons have no prima facie right or interest in the property at this stage. The Court further emphasized the principle of lis pendens governing the parties' interests during litigation and concluded that the injunction granted by the lower courts was granted with material irregularity and was therefore unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Revision allowed. The impugned orders granting injunctions in favor of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are set aside and vacated. There shall be no orders as to costs.
The direct effect of this decision is the removal of the injunctions that restrained the petitioners from alienating the suit property, reflecting that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have no enforceable interest in the property while their father is alive. The opinion does not establish any new precedent but applies existing legal principles to the facts before the Court.
1. This revision is filed by the defendants against whom an injunction order is passed by both the Courts below.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as under:—
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, regarding agricultural land bearing survey No. 66 and 94, situated at village Badokhar, district Morena. The said property was purchased in the name of Madangopal by registered sale deed dated 21-7-1944. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 3 are sons of Madangopal, while respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are grandsons of Madangopal. They are claiming their right to the suit property through their father/respondent No. 3.
3. The suit is filed on the allegation that father of Madangopal, Thakurdas had retired from Calcutta Jute Mill and had received some retiral benefits at the time of his retirement. The suit property was purchased from the said amount and is thus purchased from the joint family funds. Both the Courts below prima facie found that this property was purchased out of the funds received by Thakurdas, who has retired from Calcutta Jute Mill and, therefore, respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have interest in the suit property.
4. After perusing both these judgments, in my opinion, the Courts below have acted with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction and in granting an injunction against Madangopal and petitioners. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were aged 33 years and 28 years respectively at the time of institution of the suit and, thus, appears to have born after 1956. The present suit is filed in the year 1996. In 1956 Hindu Succession Act has come into force.
5. The Supreme Court has considered the impact of Hindu Succession Act 1956 in its judgment in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur etc. v. Chander Sen etc., (1986) 3 SCC 567 : AIR 1986 SC 1753, and has held as under:—
“19. It is necessary to bear in mind the Preamble to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Preamble states that it was an Act to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus.
20. In view of the Preamble to the Act i.e, that to modify where necessary and to codify the law, in our opinion it is not possible when Schedule indicates heirs in Class I and only includes son and does not includes son's son but does include son of a predeceased son, to say, that when son inherits the property in the situation contemplated by section 8 he takes it as karta of his own undivided family. The Gujarat High Court's view noted above, if accepted, would mean that though the son of a predeceased son and not the son of a son who is intended to be excluded under section 8 to inherit, the latter would be applying the old Hindu law get a right by birth of the said property contrary to the scheme outlined in section 8.”
6. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 : AIR 1987 SC 558, has again considered the question and has held as under:—
“10. This question has been considered by this Court in Commr. of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 : AIR 1986 SC 1753, where one of us (Sabysachi Mukharji, J.) observed that under the Hindu Law; the moment a son is born, he gets a share in father's property and becomes part of the coparcanary. His right accrues to him not on the death of the father or inheritance from the father but with the very fact of his birth. Normally, therefore, whenever the father gets a property from whatever source from the grandfather or from any other source, be it separate property or not, his son should have a share in that and it will become part of the joint Hindu family of his son and grandson and other members who form joint Hindu family with him. This Court observed that this position has been affected by section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and, therefore, after the Act, when the son inherited the property in the situation contemplated by section 8, he does not take it as Kar of his own undivided family but takes it in his individual capacity.”
7. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements, it is clear that after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the theory of birthright does not exist and son gets share in the property only after death of his father.
8. From the record, it is clear that Madangopal expired after filing of this revision while Ramgopal is still alive. In such a situation, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who have filed the suit, have prima facie no right, title or interest in the suit property. They will not get any interest in the property so long as Ramgopal is alive and, therefore, they have no prima facie case in their favour to seek injunction.
9. Moreover, the injunction sought is restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property. The interest of the parties pending litigation is always governed by the principle of lis pendence. In view of the fact, I allow this revision and vacate the injunction order passed by Courts below.
10. Revision is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The injunction orders passed by the Courts below are vacated. There shall be no orders as to costs.
Revision allowed.
Alert