BHANWAR SINGH versus PURAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 775 · Decided: 12-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

--, 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 775 
BHANWAR SINGH 
A 
II. 
PURAN AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1233 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
--4 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - ss. 8, 19 & 6 - Property 
... 
owned by Appellant's paternal grandfather - He died in 1972 
- Partition between Appellant's father and his three sisters -
c 
Mutation in revenue records of 1973-74 - Each taking '!4th 
share - Appellant born in 1977 - Alienations made by 
Appellant's father in favour of Respondents, firstly by way of ' 
mortgage and then by sale, in 1985 - Challenge to, by 
Appellant - Held: Having regard to s. 8 as also s. 19, the D 
property ceased to be joint family property and all heirs and 
.,.. 
LRs of Appellanfs paternal grandfather succeeded to his 
interest as tenants in common and not as joint tenants - The 
ioint coparcenary did not continue - Appellant's father had the 
requisite right to transfer lands falling within his share. 
E 
The paternal grandfather of Appellant was the 
original owner of the property in question. He died in the 
year 1972, pursuant to which the said property was 
partitioned between Appellant's father and his three 
sisters. Their names were mutated in the revenue records 
F 
j 
of 1973-74 wherein their shares were shown to be %th 
each. Appellant was born in the year 1977. His father made 
certain alienations, firstly by way of mortgage and 
thereafter by sale, in favour of the Respondents in the year 
i 
1985. Appellant filed suit challenging the said alienations G 
-~ 
on the ground that the property in question was a joint 
family property and the said alienations were not made 
for legal nec.essity. Trial Court decreed the suit. The First 
Appellate Court reversed the judgment holding that upon 
! 
775 -.... 
H 
776 
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 2 S.C.R. 
-A 
death of the· original owner, Appellant's father became a 
co-sharer of the property.and having regard to the entries 
. of the jamabandi, it had been established that he, along 
With his sisters, having inherited the same in equal shares, 
the property lost the character of ancestral property in 
B · terms of s:8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court 
held that in, any e~er.it, the Deed ·of Sale· exe~-uted by 
Appellant's. father 'havi.ng been e.xecuted for legal . 
necessity as the suit property had already been 
mort~aged, the ~eed~ Of sale C()Lil
1d not have· been 
c · cancelled. Second appeal filed before the .High Court was 
di!>missed. Hence t~e present appea~. 
Dismissing the- appeal, the Court: 
. 
HELD: 1. S. 6 of the Hindu Su.ccession Act, 1956, as 
D it stood at the relevant time, provided for devolution .. of. 
interest in the coparcenary property. S.8 ,Qf the Act lays 
down the general rules of succession tti~t the property 
of a male dying .intestate devolve according to the 
provisions of the Chapter as specified in clause (1) of the 
Schedule. In the Schedule appen'ded to the Act, nat~ral 
E sons and daughters are placed: in Class.-!' h~irs but a 
grandson, so long as father i~ alive, h~s not been. 
included; S.19 of the Act provides that in the event. of 
succession by two or more heirs, they will take the 
property per capita. and not per: stirpes, as also tenants- .. 
F in-common and not as joint tenants. [Par.a 11] [780-F, G; 
781-A] 
.. 
I ... 
r 
·. 2.1. In terms of s.8 of the Act, the properties of the · 
Appellan't's paternal grandfather devolved .upon 
f 
G .Appellant's father and his three sisters. Each had 1/4th . 
share in the property. Apart from the ·legal po'siti~n, 
factually the same was also reflected in the rec:ord of 
·~ 
rights. A partition had taken place amongst the heirs of 
. the paternal grandfather of Appell.ant. [Para 12] [781-A, Bj 
H 
2.2. Although th~ First Appellate Court proceeded to 
+ 
)I 
BHANWAR SINGH v. PURAN AND ORS. 
777 
consider the effect of s.6 of the Act, the same was not A 
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In 
any event, it had rightly been held that even in such a 
case, having regard to s.8 as also s.19 of the Act, the 
properties ceased to be joint family property and all the 
heirs and. legal representatives of the Appellant's s 
paternal grandfather would succeed to his interest as 
tenants in common and not as joint tenants. In a case of 
this nature, the joint coparcenary did not continue. 
[Para 13] [781-8, C, D] 
2.3. The first Court of Appeal also entered into the C 
question of legal necessity for Appellant's fa

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