AMRIT LAL AND ORS. versus MAHARANI AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 21-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 617 
r 
AMRIT LAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MAHARANI AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4585 of 2009) 
JULY 21, 2009 
B 
[5.8. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
\ 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956/0udh Rent Act, 1886: 
Mitakshara coparcenary property - One party claiming c 
to the exclusion of others, on the basis of patta, allegedly 
granted by Zamindar - Held: Property enured to the benefit 
of joint family - 1t was for the claimant to establish that the 
joint family disrupted prior to the alleged grant of patta but 
there was no pl~ading far less any proof in that regard - If for D 
purpose of collection of revenue or otherwise, name of one 
of them was entered into in the revenue records, the same 
would not mean that the property vested in him irrespective 
of the share of the other co-owners - Records clearly-point 
out that the disputed property was ancestralproperty- There 
E 
exists a presumption with regard to continuance of joint family 
- Also there was nothing on record to show that the provisions 
of the Oudh Rent Act were applicable - U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1951. 
-. 
~ 
The parties to the present appeal constituted a 
F 
coparcenary governed by Mitakshara Law. 'B', the 
common ancestor of the parties, was the purported 
original owner of the disputed property. He died leaving 
behind two sons 'S' and 'R'. Appellants are the grand-
children of 'S'. 
G 
_.,, 
It was claimed by the appellants that in terms of the 
provisions of the Oudh Rent Act, 1886, after death of 'B', 
the property vested in the then Zamindar of the village 
617 
R 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A who granted fresh lease of the property in question in 
""\ 
favour of 'S', and thus the same became his self acquired 
property and ceased to be joint family property. 
Respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the 
B disputed property was joint family property and the right 
acquired by 'S' therein was only of a representative 
character. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
f 
c 
HELD: 1.1. Noticeably the matter was heard by 
another Bench of this Court. The appellants were asked 
to file the deed of lease of the disputed property. On the 
plea that the said deed of lease could not be traced out 
because the house of the appellants had fallen down due 
D to rain and valuable things including the said deed was 
destroyed, the same has not been produced. Such a plea 
had not been taken earlier. The said deed of lease was 
directed to be produced as the same had not been 
produced before the courts below. It was absolutely 
E necessary for proving his case. [Para 14] [623-F-G] 
1.2. There is also nothing on record to show that the 
provisions of the Oudh Rent Act would apply. If the Khata 
No. 908 was the subject matter of an occupancy tenancy, 
there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the property 
F would be heritable. Once it is held that the property 
' 
belonged to mitakshra coparcenary family, 'B' cannot be 
said to have an exclusive right thereover and, thus, the 
question of the said property having vested again to the 
Zamindar of the Village upon his death did not and could 
G not arise. The rule of succession governing the Mitakshra 
School of Hindu Law would operate. [Para 14] [624-A-C] 
Bijai Suncferji v. Hari Prasad & Ors. (decided by Board 
~-
of Revenue) (1942) Revenue Decisions 212, distinguished. 
H 
AMRliriMLA~P p~s. v. MAHARANI ANq ORS. 
619 
.:::\ \ 
2.1. If for the purpose of collection of revenue or A 
otherwise, the name of 'S' was entered into in the revenue 
\ 
records after the death of 'B', but th~ same would not 
mean that the property vested in him irrespective of the 
share of the other co-owners. A mitakshra 1coparcenary 
being a separate entity; once the property vested in it, the 
B 
same would continue to vest in it irrespective of the death 
of one or the other coparceners subject .of· course to the 
application of rule of survivorship. Furthermore, upon 
~ coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act, 1951, the right, title and interest of the C 
Zamindar vested in the State. The !natter relating to 
suq:ession and inheritance would be governed by the 
proyisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [Para 15) 
[624-F-H; 625-A] 
2.2. In any view of the matter as has rightly been held 
D 
,.\· by the High Court, there exists a presumption with regard 
to the continuance of the joint family. It was for the 
appellants to establish that the joint fa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.