Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Partition Suit, Sets Aside Concurrent Findings. Court holds that second wife and her children are entitled to share in joint family property as coparceners under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 115
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a partition suit filed by the first wife and her daughters against the husband and his second wife and children. The trial court and first appellate court had decreed partition in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them 1/4th share each. The defendants, being the second wife and her children, appealed to the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeals, holding that the second wife and her children are also coparceners and entitled to share in the joint family property. The court set aside the concurrent findings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that all parties be given their rightful shares.

Headnote

A) Hindu Law - Partition - Coparcenary Rights - Second Wife and Children - The court considered whether the second wife and her children are entitled to a share in the joint family property. Held that the second wife, being a legally wedded wife, and her children are coparceners and entitled to share in the joint family property. (Paras 5-10)

B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The court examined whether the lower appellate court erred in law by not considering the rights of the second wife and her children. Held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were perverse and liable to be set aside. (Paras 3-4)

C) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Coparcenary Property - The court interpreted the rights of daughters as coparceners under the amended Section 6. Held that daughters are entitled to equal share as sons in the coparcenary property. (Paras 11-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the second wife and her children are entitled to a share in the joint family property and whether the suit for partition was maintainable without impleading all necessary parties.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the second appeals, set aside the common judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration, directing that all parties be given their rightful shares in the joint family property.

Law Points

  • Partition
  • Hindu Succession Act
  • 1956
  • Coparcenary
  • Second Wife
  • Legitimacy
  • Necessary Parties
  • Civil Procedure Code
  • 1908
  • Section 100
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (07) 93

Second Appeal No.737 of 2013 with Civil Application No.1729 of 2013 and Second Appeal No.738 of 2013

2018-07-30

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.

Mr. Tejas Dande, I/by Mr. Sachin Gite, for the Appellants-Applicants; Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for the Respondents

Balkrishna Pandurang Halde and Others

Yeshodabai Balkrishna Halde and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property.

Remedy Sought

The plaintiffs (respondents) sought partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share each in the suit properties.

Filing Reason

The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to share in the joint family property as wife and daughters of the first appellant.

Previous Decisions

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants appealed to the High Court.

Issues

Whether the second wife and her children are entitled to a share in the joint family property? Whether the suit for partition was maintainable without impleading all necessary parties?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the second wife and her children are also coparceners and entitled to share in the property. Respondents argued that the second wife is not a legally wedded wife and her children are not entitled to share.

Ratio Decidendi

The second wife and her children are coparceners and entitled to share in the joint family property. The suit for partition was not maintainable without impleading all necessary parties.

Judgment Excerpts

The second wife and her children are also coparceners and entitled to share in the joint family property. The concurrent findings of the courts below were perverse and liable to be set aside.

Procedural History

The suit was filed in 1995, decreed by the trial court in 2002, confirmed by the first appellate court in 2013, and then appealed to the High Court in 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 6
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Employees in Cooperative Society Recruitment Case — Procedural Defects Not Attributable to Employees Cannot Invalidate Appointments After Long Service. The court held that appointments made pursuant to a public advert...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Enhances Compensation in Workmen's Compensation Case for Death of Tractor Driver Due to Negligence of Owner. The court held that the owner cannot escape liability on the ground of contributory negligence as the deceased was no...