Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over ancestral properties between a sister (respondent/plaintiff) and her brother's family (appellants/defendants). The respondent claimed a half share in the suit properties, which she alleged was denied. The appellants argued that the respondent, being married before 1994, was not a coparcener and her share should be limited to two-ninth. The trial court partly decreed the suit, but the appellate court modified it, reducing the respondent's share. The High Court, in second appeal, examined the issue of coparcenary rights of a married daughter under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court held that a daughter is a coparcener by birth and notional partition cannot be used to diminish her share. The court allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court's decree granting the respondent a half share in the suit properties.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Coparcenary Rights - Married Daughter's Share - Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The court considered whether a married daughter is a coparcener entitled to a share in ancestral property. Held that a daughter, even if married before 1994, is a coparcener by birth and notional partition cannot deprive her of her share. (Paras 2-4)
B) Partition - Notional Partition - Effect on Shares - Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The court examined the effect of notional partition on the shares of parties. Held that notional partition cannot be assumed to reduce a daughter's share; actual partition must be proved. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a married daughter is entitled to a share in ancestral property and whether notional partition can reduce her share.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the first appellate court set aside. Judgment and decree of the trial court restored, granting respondent half share in suit properties.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- coparcenary rights
- notional partition
- married daughter's share
- ancestral property
- partition suit
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (03) 104
Second Appeal No.52 of 2012
Shri A.S. Mardikar for Appellants, Shri R.G. Kavimandan for Respondent
Smt. Leelabai wd/o Dagduba Hingne and others
Sau. Bhikabai Shriram Pakhare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral properties.
Remedy Sought
Respondent (plaintiff) sought partition and separate possession of her half share in suit properties.
Filing Reason
Respondent claimed that her brother's family denied her share in ancestral properties after the death of her parents and brother.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed suit granting half share to respondent; First appellate court modified decree reducing share to two-ninth.
Issues
Whether a married daughter is a coparcener entitled to a share in ancestral property?
Whether notional partition can reduce the share of a married daughter?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that respondent, being married before 1994, was not a coparcener and her share should be limited to two-ninth based on notional partition.
Respondent argued that she is a coparcener by birth and entitled to half share in ancestral properties.
Ratio Decidendi
A daughter is a coparcener by birth under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and notional partition cannot be used to deprive her of her share in ancestral property.
Judgment Excerpts
The respondent claimed that she had one half share in the suit properties which was denied to her and, therefore, she filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties.
They submitted that since respondent got married prior to 1994, there would be notional partition in or about 1994 according to which Kashinath, Dwarkabai and Dagduba would receive one third share each, and daughter being married would not get anything.
Procedural History
Respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.171/2007 in the court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Buldana, which was decreed on 31/01/2011. Appellants appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.36/2011 before Principal District Judge, Buldana, who modified the decree on 16/11/2011. Appellants then filed Second Appeal No.52/2012 in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed on 28/03/2014.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 6
