MADANLAL PHULCHAND JAIN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 09-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MADANLAL PHULCHAND JAIN 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
APRIL 9, 1992 
[AM. AHMADI AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961-Sec-
tion 45 (2 )-Hindu-lnheriting land as nephew-Natural father having become 
uncle in adoption-Such land-Whether separate or ancestrat--Computation 
A 
B 
of swplus land. 
C 
Hindu Law 
Joint family-Blending of separate propert;r--Proof of-Necessity of 
evidence for. 
The appellant was taken in adoption in the family of his unde. On 
adoption, he got about 28 acres of agricultural land from the adoptive 
family. He also inherited land admeasuring 19 acres ana 19-1/2 gunthas 
from his natural father, who died leaving beMnd no other heir. 
The Commissioner, exercising power under Section 45(2) of the 
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, came to 
the conclusion that the land inherited by the appellant was ·a separate 
property and could not be characterised as ancestral property. The Com· 
missioner, further took the view that since the land inherited by the 
appellant could not be described as ancestral property, the appellant's 
major son's share could not be deducted therefrom, and hence the surplus 
had to be worked out without making any such deduction. 
D 
E 
F 
These views were confirmed by the High Court in a Writ Petition 
brought under Article 227 of the Constitution. The contention that the 
inherited property blended with the ancestral property and hence it had G 
acquired the character of an ancestral property was rejected. 
Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to this Court which granted spe-
cial leave confining it to the question of blending. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
479 
H 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. A Hindu can have interest in ancestral property as well 
as acquire his separate or self-acquired property. If he acquires by in· 
-..( 
heritance separate property a birth of a son or adoption of a son will not 
deprive him of the power he has to dispose of his separate property by gift 
or will. [ 481.H] 
B 
2. Excluding the property inherited from a maternal grandfather the 
only property which can be characterised as ancestral property is the 
)t 
property inherited by a person from his father, father's father, or father's 
father's father. That means property inherited by a person from any other 
relation becomes his separate property and his male issue does not take 
c any interest therein by birth. [4828] 
--.
-"'( 
In the instant case, the property which the appellant inherited from 
his uncle (natural father) was his separate property in which his major 
~ 
son could not claim any share whatsoever. (4820] 
D 
3. Under the Mitakshara Law each son upon his birth takes an 
interest equal to that of his father in ancestral property, both movable and 
immovable. This right is independent of his father. [482E] 
In the instant case, if the appellant is able to establish blending of 
E 
his separate property with ancestral property, the plea of deduction of 
1/Sth share of his son on notional partition may perhaps be well founded. 
It must, therefore be shown that the appellant had thrown his separate 
·..t. 
property in the common stock with the intention of abondoning his 
separate claim thereon. [ 482F] · 
F 
4. Evidence must be led to show a clear intention to give up his 
---
separate rights and allow the separate property to be treated as an 
ancestral property and be enjoyed by the coparceners. Such an intention 
has to be proved by tendering evidence, since no such inference can be 
7 
drawn even from the fact that he had permitted his family members to use 
G it along with him nor can it be proved from the mere fact that the income 
of the separate property was used for supporting his son or from the fact 
that he had failed to maintain separate accounts of the yield of both sets 
of properties. [ 482F -HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2627 of 
""' 
H 
1982. 
\ 
M. P. JAIN v. STATE [AlfMADI, J.) 
481 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.1980 of the Bombay High A 
Court in Special Civil Application No. 9074 of 1977. 
V.N. Ganpule and V.B. Joshi for the Appellant. 
S.M. Jadhav and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AHMADI, J. The appellant was taken in adoption in the family of 
his uncle. On adoption he got agricultural land admeasuring about 28 acres 
from the adoptive family. His natural fathe

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