Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kumari Lata, a minor daughter represented by her maternal uncle, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad, in O.S. Old No.37/2010 (New No.106/2011). The suit was for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties, which were claimed to be joint family properties of the plaintiff and her parents, defendant Nos.1 and 2 (Shivaji Rao Pol and Kamla). The plaintiff contended that she and her parents constituted a Hindu Joint Family and were co-owners and co-possessors of the properties. It was alleged that defendant No.1, the father, had no knowledge of family affairs due to his Army service, and that defendant No.2, the mother, was illiterate and not aware of the properties. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1 had executed a sale deed in favor of defendant Nos.3 and 4 without legal necessity and without consideration, which was not binding on the plaintiff's share. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit properties were joint family properties and that she was in joint possession. The High Court, upon hearing the appeal, framed the question of whether the trial court's judgment was sustainable. The court noted that the relationship of father and daughter itself constitutes a Hindu Joint Family, and the plaintiff, being a daughter, is a coparcener by birth under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove joint family status. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff a 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The court also held that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant Nos.3 and 4 were not binding on the plaintiff's share. The respondents were served but did not appear.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Daughter's Right - Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for partition filed by a minor daughter against her parents. The High Court held that a daughter is a coparcener by birth and entitled to a share in joint family property. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove joint family status was erroneous as the relationship of father and daughter itself establishes a Hindu Joint Family. The court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff a 1/3rd share in the suit properties. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad. The High Court, hearing the appeal finally, set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed the suit with costs throughout. (Paras 1-2, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a minor daughter is entitled to a share in the joint family property and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad, in O.S. Old No.37/2010 (New No.106/2011) is set aside. The suit is decreed, and the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant Nos.3 and 4 are not binding on the plaintiff's share. The appellant is entitled to costs throughout.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- Partition
- Joint Family Property
- Daughter's Right
- Coparcenary
