Case Note & Summary
The revision application arose from a suit for declaration, partition, possession, perpetual injunction, and mesne profit filed by respondent no.1/plaintiff, a granddaughter of Namdev Nikam, against her maternal uncles and others. The plaintiff claimed half share in the 1/8th share allotted to her mother, defendant no.1 Prabhavati, in the ancestral joint family properties of her maternal grandfather. The applicants, original defendant nos.6 and 7, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff, being a granddaughter, was not a coparcener and could not maintain a partition suit while her mother, a coparcener, was alive and not claiming partition. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the issues required a full-fledged trial. The applicants challenged this order in revision. The High Court examined the plaint and the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended, and the principles of coparcenary and obstructed heritage enunciated in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma. The court observed that under Section 6(1), only a daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth, not a granddaughter. The plaintiff's mother, being a daughter of the deceased coparcener Namdev, had a birth right, but she had not filed any suit for partition or made any grievance about denial of her share. The suit lands were coparcenary property of the plaintiff's mother, not of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's right, if any, was obstructed by her mother's existence, constituting obstructed heritage, and thus the suit was premature. The court concluded that the plaintiff had no cause of action and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the trial court's order dated 28.02.2023, and rejected the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Maintainability - Court examined only the plaint allegations and found that the plaintiff, as a granddaughter, could not maintain a suit for partition when her mother, a coparcener, was alive and not claiming partition; the trial court erred in holding that a full-fledged trial was necessary. Held that the plaint was liable to be rejected as it disclosed no cause of action (Paras 1, 4, 7, 11). B) Hindu Succession - Coparcenary Rights - Section 6(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own right and is at par with a son; the provision does not extend to a granddaughter. The plaintiff, being a granddaughter on the maternal side, was not a coparcener in the suit lands and could not demand partition. Held that the suit lands were not coparcenary property of the plaintiff but of her mother (Paras 8-11). C) Hindu Law - Obstructed Heritage - Mitakshara Law - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 - The right of a granddaughter to the coparcenary property is obstructed by the existence of her mother, the owner; it is only on the death of the mother that obstructed heritage takes effect. The court relied on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1, extracting the principles of unobstructed and obstructed heritage. Held that the plaintiff's claim was premature (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint filed by a granddaughter for partition of her maternal grandfather's coparcenary property was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC when her mother, a coparcener under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was alive and not claiming partition.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the trial court's order dated 28.02.2023, and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Law Points
- Granddaughter not a coparcener under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- daughter alone becomes coparcener by birth
- suit for partition by granddaughter not maintainable when mother alive and not claiming partition
- coparcenary property of maternal grandfather cannot be treated as plaintiff's coparcenary property
- obstructed heritage bars granddaughter's right during mother's lifetime
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allows rejection of plaint without trial when no cause of action.
