SATRUGHAN ISSER versus SUBUJPARI & OTHERS

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 04-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SATRUGHAN ISSER 
.v. 
SMT .. SUBUJPARI & OTHERS 
August 4, 1966 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.j 
Hindu Women·s 
Rlghts to Property 
Act 
(18 of 1937) 
Section 
3(2); 3(3)-Sope of-Hindu widow claiming partition of coparcenary pro-
perty-Whether right of survivorship of other coparceners in such property 
extinguished-Nature of widow's in1erest-Devo/ut1on thereof. 
C, a Hindu widow, instituted a suit in April 1949 against the c0llaterals 
of her husband for a decree for partition and separate possession of a 
share in the propertil:s belonging t() a coparcenary, of which her husband 
was a member. It was her case that her husband separated in 1934 from 
the corarcenary and that on his death in October 1937, his share in the 
property devolved upon her but that the defendants failed and neglected 
to divide the estate and deliver to her the share inherited by her C died 
in 1951 and her two daughters, the respondenlll in the appeal, were 
brought on the record as her heirs artd legal representatives. 
The trial court di•missed the suit on the view that tho plea of separa-
tion of C's husband from the coparcenary in 1934 was not established and 
that his interest in the coparcenary property devolved upon the other 
coparceners. In appeal, the High Court re..-ersed this dociiiun and granted 
a decree for pessession of a share in the property as at the date of tho 
...it. 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The smt was rightly docreed by the High C-0urt. 
Although 
it was not established that C's husband separated from the coparcenary 
in 1934, upon his death in 1937, by the operation of section 3 of 
Act 18 of 1937, C was invested with her husband's interest in the co-
parcenary property. When she instituted a suit for partition, that interest 
became defined and vested in her free from all claims or rights of tho . 
F 
coparceners of her husband. On Cs death, even though the interest was 
not sep11rate by metes and bounds, and was not in her exclusive posses· 
sion, it devolved upon the nearest heirs of her husband i.e. the . respon-
dents. (14 DJ 
H 
¥ 
A widow of a coparcener is invested bys. 3(2) of the Act (18 of 1937) 
with the same interest which her husband had at the time of his dealth in 
the property of the coparcenary. She is thereby introduced in the co-
parcenary, and between the surviving coparceners of her husband and 
the widow so introduced there arises community of interest and unity of 
possession. 
But the widow does not on that account become a coparce-
ner; though invested with the same interest which her husband had in the 
property she does not acquire the right which her husband could h"'" 
exercised over the interest of the other coparcenen. Because of statutory 
mbstitution of her interest in the coparcenary property in place of her 
husband, the right which the other coparceners had, 
under the 
Hindu 
law of the Mitakshara school, of taking that interest by 
the Pile of 
1univorship remains suspended so long as that estate enurm. Although 
the interest acquired by the widow under s. 3(2) is subject to the rea-
trictions on alienation which are inherent in her estate, she 1till h .. 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1967) I S.C.R. 
power to make her interest definite by making a demand for partition •• 
a male owner may. If the widow after being introduced into the family 
to which her bu.band belonged docs not seek partition, on the tenni-
nation of her estate her interest will merge into the coparccnary propert)'. 
Rut if she claims panition. she is severed from the other 
membrs 
-:ind 
her intel'tdt becomes a defined interest in the coparcenary property, and 
the right of the other coparceners to take that interest by sunivorship will 
•tand extinguished. If she dies after partition or her estate is otherwise 
determined, the interest in coparcenary property which has Ve<;ted in her 
\\'ill devolve upon the heirs of her husband. 
To assume as has ~n done 
in sonic decided case' that the right of the coparccners to take her interest 
on determination of Lhe widow's interest survives even 
afler the interest 
has become definite. because of a claim for pa11ition, is tu denude the 
right to claim partition of all reality. [II C-12 Bl 
Lakshmi Per11ma/lu v. Krislrnavenanzma, [1965] I S.C.R. 26 referred 
to; Moyya Subba Rao and Another v. Moyya Krishna Prasadan1 and Anr., 
I.L.R. (1954] Mad. 257; Sliamrao B/iagwantrao v. 
Kasliibai and Others, 
AIR 1956 Nag. 110; a

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