ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL AND ORS. versus BALWANT@ BALASAHEB BABUSAHEB PATIL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND HEIRS ETC.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 06-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL AND ORS. 
v. 
BALWANT@ BALASAHEB BABUSAHEB PATIL (DEAD) 
BY LRS. AND HEIRS ETC. 
JANUARY 6, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Hindu law-Hindu Joint family-Primogeniture-lmpanible estate--
Rule of succession by survivorship-To establish that a family ceases to be 
C joint it is necessary to prove intention on part of junior members to renounce 
their right of succession to estate. 
Hindu law-Hindu Joint Famil-y--Impartible estate-Watan 
lan"tis--Abolition of 'Patel watan' by the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Aboli-
tion of Office) Act, 1962 on 1.1.1963-Regrant u/s 5-Whether on re-grant, 
D the attached watan lands assumed the character of self-acquired property of 
the watandar-No--Regrant of lands to watandar must ensure to the benefit 
of entire joint Hindu family-Right of members of family to claim panition. 
Limitation Act, 1963-Article 65-Adverse possessiott-Onus of 
E proof-Hindu joint family-Hostile assenion during statutory period. 
Father of the appellant and first respondent B died in 1956. B was 
the eldest male member in the joint family consisting ~f himself and the 
appellant. All properties except two items of agricultural lands attached 
to the 'Patel watan' were partitioned by metes and bounds. The watan 
F 
properties attached to the office of Patel, by rule of primogeniture, became 
impartible. The Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 
1962 came into force on January 1, 1963. The Patel watans stood abolished. 
B. being the eldest member of the family, obtained a re-grant u/s 5 
G of the Act which provides for re-grant on payment of occupancy price. The 
appellants filed the suit for partition and allotment of half share therein. 
The trial court decreed the suit. However, the decree was set aside in 
appeal. The High Court held that after the re-grant, the properties became 
the personal property of B and were therefore not partible. 
H 
In appeal it was contended by the respondents that after the aboli· 
88 
., 
A.B.PATILv. BALWANT 
89 
ti on of the 'Patel watan' and re-grant in favour of B in 1965, in consequence A 
of the abolition of the watan and the burden of service attached to the 
office, the pre-existing rights and liabilities appertaining to the land stood 
abolished and the regrant and the terms contained therein determined the 
rights of the parties. Since it was a re-grant made personal to the watandar 
the property became his self acquired property. 
B 
They further submitted that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 
came into force, the property had become the self acquired property in 
terms of the sanad and B was responsible to the State Government for 
payment of the land revenue. As Kolhapur District bore a distinctive 
feature of the watandari rights, it was necessary to find the existence of C 
the watan from the grant and not subject it to operation of section 3 of the 
·Act. Upon the demise of the parties, father in 1956 the right to succession 
opened under the law of primogeniture. The junior members of the family, 
by custom, had no right to any share in the property. The property thereby 
vested in B in the year 1956 and his heirs alone were entitled to succeed 
to the estate of B. The appellants, therefore, had no right to claim any D 
partition in the property. 
In the connected appeal Vilas G. Devi v. Ramachandra Y. Dalvi and 
Ors., it was further contended that the respondents had acquired title by 
prescription. It was averred that mutation was effected on August 16, 1955 E 
and from that date the respondents were in exclusive possession and 
enjoyment and that after the abolition of the watan and subsequent re-
grant it was their exclusive property to which they prescribed title by 
adverse possession. 
The question raised for consideration was whether on re-grant made F 
under Sec. 5 (1) of the Act, the attached watan lands assumed the character 
of the self acquired property of the watandar. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1:1. Primogeniture means first born and denotes the G 
preferential rights of the senior most in age to succeed to the estate in 
preference to his younger brother. In an impartible estate though the 
other rights which a coparcenar acquires by birth in joint family property 
do not exist, the right by birth of the senior member to take by survivorship 
still remains. In order to establish that a family governed by Mitakshra in H 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 1

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