RADHA BAI versus RAM NARAYAN & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 22-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
119
RADHA BAI
v.
RAM NARAYAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5889 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 22, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss. 6 and 8 – Share in the
property – A land was owned and possessed by one ‘S’ –  S’ had
two sons ‘J’ and ‘P’ – ‘J’ had two sons defendant No. 4 and father
of the appellant-plaintiff – Appellant’s father predeceased ‘J’ (his
father) and ‘S’ (his grandfather) – He died in 1957, whereas ‘J’
died in 1982 and ‘S’ in 1965 – Appellant’s father left behind his
wife and daughter-appellant – After the death of ‘S’, his two sons
‘J’ & ‘P’ partitioned the suit property and result of which, the suit
property came to the exclusive share of ‘J’ and had become the
absolute owner thereof, on basis of  which right, he (‘J’) executed
registered sale deed in favour of his three grandsons (sons of
defendant No. 4) – Appellant instituted suit and sought share in
the property – The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court – The
Appellate Court, however, reversed the conclusion reached by the
Trial Court and ordered appellant to obtain possession over the
half share of the disputed land – Aggrieved, respondents-defendant
Nos. 1 to 4 filed second appeal before the High Court – The High
Court set aside the Judgment of the Appellate Court and affirmed
the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court – On appeal,
held: After the death of ‘S’ in 1965, the property devolved upon
his two sons ‘J’ and ‘P’ – They succeeded and partitioned property
between themselves – As a result property came into exclusive share
of ‘J’ – The father of appellant-plaintiff had predeceased his father
‘J’ and even his grandfather ‘S’ – During the life time of ‘J’, father
of appellant could not have succeeded to the property and for the
same reason, the appellant being his daughter cannot be heard to
claim any right higher than that of her father – Therefore, applying
the settled legal position to the present case, the view taken by the
High Court upheld.
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 119
119
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Considering to the factual matrix of the present
case, it is noticed that ‘S’ had inherited ancestral property and
was alive till 1965. The father of appellant-plaintiff, predeceased
him in 1957.  The father of appellant was the son of ‘J’. ‘J’ died
in 1982. During the life time of ‘J’, in terms of Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 appellant’s father could not have
succeeded to the property as he could claim only through ‘J’.
‘J’, however, was alive till 1982. If appellant’s father himself had
no claim in his own rights, the question of appellant, being his
daughter, succeeding to the property does not arise.  [Para 19]
[136-E-F]
2. The consistent view of this Court, is that the grand son
or grand daughter is clearly excluded from heirs in Class-I.
Appellant’s father himself was grand son of ‘S’, who predeceased
‘S’. After the demise of ‘S’ in 1965, therefore, the ancestral suit
property could be and came to be partitioned between ‘J’ and
‘P’ in 1967. As a result of that partition, the suit property came
to the exclusive share of ‘J’ in his individual capacity. He could,
therefore, legitimately dispose of the same in the manner he
desired and which he did in favour of his grandsons (defendant
Nos.1 to 3 respectively) vide registered sale deed dated 21st
July, 1979. Neither the stated partition of 1967 nor the registered
sale deed in favour of respondents (defendant Nos.1 to 3) dated
21st July, 1979 has been challenged. The relief sought in the suit
as filed by the appellant/plaintiff is only for partition and awarding
share to the appellant/plaintiff alongwith possession. Suffice it
to observe that, the grand-daughter of ‘Janakram’ (appellant)
could not have claimed a higher right than the right of her father.
[Para 20] [136-G-H; 137-A-B]
State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram (Dead) Through
Gurbax Rai (1969) 2 SCC 33 : [1969] 3 SCR 51 ;
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others v.
Chander Sen and Others  (1986) 3 SCC 567 ;
Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204 : [1987]
1 SCR 516 ; Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Others
(2008) 7 SCC 46 : [2008] 7 SCR 1 – relied on.
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa
Magdum and Others (1978) 3 SCC 383 : [1978] 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
121
SCR 761 ; Ramesh Verma (Dead) Through Legal
Representatives v. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) By Legal
Representatives and Another  (2017)

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