RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU SINCE DECEASED THR. L.RS.& ORS; versus GOBERDHAN SAO SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 06-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI, ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. 
.-
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 813 
RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU SINCE DECEASED 
THR. L.RS.& ORS; 
v. 
GOBERDHAN SAO SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS. 
. . 
: 
(Civil Appeal No. 1110 ofZ006) 
APRJL06,2017 
: [RANJAN GOGOi ~ND ASIIOK BHUSIIAN, JJ.) · 
•Partition - Allocation of shares as regards joint family 
properties - Under s.3(2) of Hindu Womens "Rights to Property Act, 
1937, on the death ofhusband, his widow becoiues entitle to a share 
in the joint family property - Further, property of a joi/1/ family 
does not cease to belong to the family merely because. the family is 
represe111ed by a single co-parcener who possesses rights which an 
owner of property may possess - Hindu Womens Rights to Property 
Act, 1937 - s,3(2) - Hindu Succession.Act, 1956 - s.6. 
Partlyallowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The common ancestor of parties 'FM' died in 
the year 1940. At the time of his death, the Hindu Women's 
Rights to Property Act, 1937 was. in force. 1Jnder Section 3(2) of 
the 1937 Act, on the death of'Jo"M' his widow/wife 'PD' became 
entitled to a share in the joint family property. However, the 
. share· of 'PD' would remain undeterinined till such time when 
there is a partition in the family. On the date of death of 'FM', 
his son 'MS' did not have any male issue. However, the joint 
· family in question can be understood to have continued with 'MS' 
as the 'Karla' arid the property continued to belong to the joint 
Jamily.Thus, the position prior to the coming into force of the 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that the joint family continued 
on the death of '.FM' witi1 'MS' as the sole coparcener and the 
joint family properties continued to belong to the. family and 
furthermore 'PD' continued to have a share in the property. [Paras 
9, 10, 11, 121 (817-E, G; sis-c, }'-GJ 
· 
.· 2.1 After the death of 'MS' in the year l961, following the 
provisions of ~eetion 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a 
notional partition· just before the death of 'MS' will have to be 
813 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
814 
A 
D 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
' 
' 
presumed. There would, therefore, be 8 sharers in. the joint family 
properties and the share of each one. of them would equal i.e. 1/. ' '' 
81h each. Insofar as 'DD', the wife of 'MS' is concerned, she 
would be entitled to l/8th share of the joint family properties 
upon the notional partition being given effect to. [Para 14) (819-
E-F; 820-A) 
. 
2.2. Next aspect of the case is with regard to the l/8th share 
of 'MS' and the devolution of the said share to the surviving 
members of the joint family. ;In this regard, it can be lield will1out 
any difficulty.that under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu 
Succession Act, 1956 the share of 'MS' in tbe joint family property 
(1/81h) would devolve by intestate succession among surviving 
members of the joint family. Thus afler 1961, 'PD' being the widow 
of '.FM' bad l/81h plus 1/721h share in the joint family. property, 
namely, 10/72th share. 'PD' died in the year 1967 leaving behind 
her daughter 'UD' and the children of her predeceased son 'MS'. 
'UD' will be entitled to receive one-half share of 'PD' i.e. half of 
' 10/72th share i.e. 10/144th sbare. The remaining 10/144th share. 
that would go to the branch of'MS' will have to be divided amongst 
8 heirs of 'MS' 1 namely, the widow and the seven children. The 
appellants-defendants are entitled to 38.1% share in tbc joint 
family property instead of 3.7.5% as ordered by the courls below. · 
[Paras 15, 16, 18) [821-D-E, II; 822-A-B; 823-D) · 
Patti Lakshmi Perumallu' v. Patti Krishna. Vena111111a 
(1965) 1 SCR 26; Gowli Buddmma v. Co111111issio11er of.· 
Income Tax, Mysore, Bangalore 119661 3 SCR · 224;. 
Gurupad Khandappa Afagdum v. Hirabai Khandappa .... 
Mdgdum and Ors. (1978) 3 SCC 383 : [1978) 3 SCR . 
761 - relied on. 
' 
' 
' Case La·w Reference 
'' 
(1965) 1 SCR 26 
relied on. 
Para 10 
J1966J 3 SCR 224 
relied on 
Para 11 
Jl978J 3 SCR 761' 
relied on 
Para14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. i 110 '-
of2006: 
· 
· ' · 
 
RAM NATH SAO@ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO ·815 
j 
~ 
• ' 
~ 
. 
. 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2003 of the High Court 
A 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Appeal from Original Decree No. 307 of 
1989 .. 
Gaurav Agrawal, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Prashant Kumar, Advs. 
for the Appellants. 
' 
Arup Banerjee, M. K. Verma, Braj Ki shore Mishra, Advs. for the 
8 
·Respondents. 
· ·The Judgment of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.