Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Smt. K.B. Dhanalakshmi, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties, claiming to be the widow of Venkatesha, who died on 1.9.2005. She married Venkatesha on 14.4.2005. After his death, the defendants (his mother and siblings) neglected to maintain her and refused to give her a share in the family properties. The defendants admitted the properties were ancestral and joint family properties and admitted the relationship, but contended that the plaintiff was entitled only to a 7/144th share based on a notional partition between the mother and Venkatesha. The trial court framed issues and decreed the suit granting the plaintiff a 1/4th share. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. The High Court, after hearing the appellants' counsel and the amicus curiae for the respondent, found that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and that no substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the plaintiff, as a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, was entitled to succeed to the share of her husband in the coparcenary property, which was to be determined by notional partition. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree for partition and separate possession of a 1/4th share in favor of the plaintiff.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Succession - Widow's Share in Joint Family Property - Sections 6, 8, 10, 23 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The plaintiff, widow of a coparcener who died intestate, claimed partition and separate possession of her husband's share in ancestral joint family properties. The defendants admitted the properties were ancestral but disputed the quantum of share. The trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit granting the plaintiff a 1/4th share. On second appeal, the High Court held that the widow is entitled to succeed to the share of her husband in the coparcenary property, which is to be ascertained by notional partition as on the date of his death. The court confirmed the decree, finding no substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The appeal under Section 100 of CPC was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the plaintiff's entitlement to a share were not shown to be perverse or contrary to law. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff-widow is entitled to a share in the joint family properties of her deceased husband, and if so, what is the extent of her share?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court granting the plaintiff a 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The miscellaneous civil applications were also disposed of.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- Section 8
- Section 10
- Section 23
- Partition
- Widow's share
- Notional partition
- Coparcenary property
- Class I heir
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (06) 24
Regular Second Appeal No.37/2010
Sri R.P. Somashekariah (for appellants), Sri G.S. Balagangadhar (Amicus Curiae for respondent)
Smt. Kalamma, Smt. Bhagya, Shri Naveen, Shri Paramesh, Sri Prakash
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family properties.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of a 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff, widow of Venkatesha, was neglected and refused a share in the family properties after her husband's death.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Holenarasipura) decreed the suit in O.S.No.145/2006 granting 1/4th share. The first appellate court (Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Addl. CJM, Holenarasipura) confirmed the decree in R.A.No.5/2008 dated 12.11.2009.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff-widow is entitled to a share in the joint family properties of her deceased husband?
What is the extent of the plaintiff's share in the suit schedule properties?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants (defendants) argued that the plaintiff is entitled only to a 7/144th share based on notional partition between mother and deceased son.
Respondent (plaintiff) contended that she is entitled to a 1/4th share as a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi
A widow, as a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is entitled to succeed to the share of her deceased husband in coparcenary property. The share of the deceased is to be ascertained by notional partition as on the date of his death. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, not shown to be perverse, do not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 100 of CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.5/2008 dated 12.11.2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Addl. CJM, Holenarasipura whereby the judgment and decree in O.S.No.145/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Holenarasipura has been confirmed.
The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties.
In the written statement, defendants have admitted that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties.
The trial Court has framed the following issues: ...
The court below has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.145/2006 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Holenarasipura, which was decreed on an unspecified date. The defendants appealed to the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Addl. CJM, Holenarasipura in R.A.No.5/2008, which was dismissed on 12.11.2009. The defendants then filed the present Regular Second Appeal No.37/2010 before the High Court of Karnataka, along with miscellaneous civil applications for stay and production of additional documents. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 25.06.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Order 41 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 27
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 6, Section 8, Section 10, Section 23
