LexMAN SINGH (D) BY LRS. versus RAM KALA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 577 MAN SINGH (D) BY LRS. v. RAM KALA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7179 of 2005) DECEMBER 09, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] A- B Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - ss. 6 and 9 - Joint hindu family - Coparcenary property - Devolution of interest - Held: Until disruption of joint family status takes place, C neither coparcener nor other beirs entitled to share in the joint family property, can claim with certainty the exact share in that property - Widow, sons and daughters are Class I heirs - Succession among heirs in Class I takes simultaneously and to the . exclusion of all other heirs - On o facts, 'S'-father died intestate leaving behind property - Appellant-son born to third wife of 'S' from her first marriage with 'L' filing suit against his mother claiming certain property by virtue of family settlement, decreed - Thereafter, suit by respondent-son of first wife of 'S' seeking declaration that E decree in favour of appellant is null and void - Holding by three courts that decree in favour of appellant not binding on first respondent, does not call for interference - In absence of any pleadings or evidence in the suit by appellant against his mother, that shares among the heirs F of the father were determined by agreement or otherwise, share of mother in the joint family property was not identified, thus, could not have alienated 1!5th share in the property to her son - Courts below erred in determining shares among the heirs of the father in absence of the daughters, Class I heirs - Determination of shares among heirs of the G father not sustainable and set aside. '$' died intestate leaving his ~~. ~idows, 'N' and 'SH', son 'RK' and three daughters.·· The respondent- 577 .• '· .. · . . :.·. H 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A 'RK' was the son of 'S' from his first wife 'P' who pre- deceased him. The appellant-'MS' was the son of 'SH' born to her from her first marriage with 'L'. The appellant filed a suit against his mother 'SH' seeking declaration to the effect that the appellant is the owner of the land B in place of first respondent on basis of the family settlement entered into between him and his mother in the year 1978; and that his mother had acquired 1/5th share in the property after the death of 'S'. 'SH' admitted the claim and the suit was decreed. First respondent C filed a suit against the appellant and 'SH' that the decree passed in favour of the appellant be declared null and void and not binding on first respondent. The trial court decreed the suit filed by first respondent. The appellant filed a first appeal and the same was partly allowed 0 holding that the first decree would not affect the rights of first respondent. First respondent filed second appeal. During pendency, the appellant and first respondent died and their legal representatives were brought on record. The High Court allowed the second appeal. E Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The conclusion arrived at by the three courts that the decree dated 09.03.1979 was not binding on the first respondent is right and proper and calls for F no interference. It is pertinent that in the earlier suit filed by the appellant against his mother in which the decree dated 09.03.1979 was passed, it was not even the case of the appellant or his mother 'SH' that shares among heirs of 'S' were determined by agreement or G otherwise. Till disruption of joint family status takes place, neither coparcener nor the other heirs entitled to share in the joint family property can claim with certainty the exact share in that property. [Para 12) [585-H; 586- A-C] H Appovier Alias Seetaramier v. Rama Subba Aiyan and MAN SINGH (D) BY LRS. v. RAM KALA (D) BY LRS. 579 & ORS. Ors. (1866) 11MIA 75; A. Raghavamma and Anr. v. A. A Chenchamma and Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136; Kalyani (Dead) By LRs. v. Narayanan and Ors. 1980 (Supp) SCC 298 - referred to. Principles of Hindu Law by Mui/a; Vol. I 17th Edn - B referred to. 1.2 Widow, sons and daughters are Class I heirs and in terms of Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the succession among heirs in Class I takes simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs. C [Para 18] [589-E] Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and Ors. (1978) 3 SCC 383; Smt. Raj Rani vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Delhi and Ors. (1984) 3 0 sec 619 - referred to. 1.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.