SITABAI & ANR. versus RAM CHANDRA

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 20-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SITABAI & ANR. 
V-
RAM CHANDRA 
August 20, 1969 
B 
[J. C. SHAH, ACTING C.J., V. RAMASWAMI AND 
A. N. GROVER, 
JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Hindu Law-Join·! faniily properties in the 
hands of sole 
sutl'Il'tng 
coparcener-lf properties lose their character of joint ja1nily propert}'. 
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (78 of 1956) ss. 11 to 14-
Adoption by widow-Deceased husband, if dee1ned to be father. 
Madhya Bharat Land Revenue (/nd Tenuncy Act (M.B. Act 66 of 1950), 
s. 86---Tenancy rir:ht of ordinary te11ant, if heritable-Heritability gvvern~ 
ed by personal law. 
"fwo brothers \Vere i~ possession of ancestral properties consisting of 
a house and tenancy rights of an 
ordinary tenant in agricultural lands. 
The elder brother died in 1930 leaving a widow, the first appellant. 
Tho 
first appellant continued to live with the younger brother and had an ille-
gitimate son by him, the respondent. 
In March 1958, she adopted the 
second appellant, and some time later, the surviving brother died. After hi5 
putative father died, the respondent took possession of all the ioint family 
properties. The t\vo appellants thereupon filed a suit for ejectment. The 
trial court decreed the suit. 
The first appellate court found that a will 
exec:..1ted by the respondent's father (the younger brother) was valid in 
so far as his half share in the house \Vas concerned and therefore ffii"'difieJ 
the decree by granting a half-share of the house to the respondl!nL 
Itt 
second appeal, the High Court held that the appellants were not entitled 
to any relief and that there suit should be dismissed, on the grounds th:it : 
( 1) the joint family properties ceased to have that character in the hand<> 
of the surviving brother when he became the sole surviving coparcener; 
and (2) the. second appellant did not become, on his adoption, a c:Jpar-
cener with his uncle in the joint family properties. 
In appeal to this Court. 
HELD : ( 1) The joint family properties 
continued to retain 
th-eir 
character in the hands of the surviving brother, as the widow (the first 
appellant) of the elder brother was still alive and continued to enjoy 
the right of maintenance out of the joint family properties. [5 B] 
Gowli Buddanna v. C.I.T. Mysore, 60 l.T.R. 293 (S.C.), followed. 
A. G. of Ceylon v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar [1957] A.C. 
540, 
applied. 
(2) The scheme of ss. II and 12 of the Hindu Adoptions an<l Main-
tenance Act, 1956, is that in the case. of adoption by a wido\v the adopted 
child becomes absorbed in the adoptive family to which the wido\V be-
longed. 
Though s. 14 of the Act doos not expressly state that the child 
adopted by a widow becomes the adopted son of her deceased husband, 
it is a necessary implication of ss. 12 and 14 of the Act. That is y;hy~ s. 
14(4) provides that when a widow 
adop1'· a child and 
subsequently 
marries, that husband becoines the step-father of the adopted child. There- . 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1970) 2 S.C.R. 
fore, in the present case, when the the second appellant was adopted by 
the first appellant he became the adopted son of the first appellant and 
her deceased. husband, namely, the elder brother, and hence became a 
coparcener with the surviving brother in the joint family properties· and, 
after the. d.eath of the surviving brother the second appellant beca~e the 
sole su:v1v1ng coparcener entitled to the possession of all the joint family 
properties except those bequeathed under the will, that is, except the half· 
share of the house. (7 D-G; A-BJ 
Arukushi Narayan v. Janabai Sama Sawat, 67 B.L.R. 864, approved. 
A 
(3) Section 86 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy 
Ac~. 1950 applies to the rights of an ordinary tenant in agricultural lands 
\Yh1ch were therefore heritable. 
In the absence of any special statutory 
provision, the heritability is governed by the personal law of the tenants. 
Therefore, the second •ppellant was entitled to the tenancy rights of his 
C 
uncle on his death. (8 G-H; 9 C-DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 856 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
September 7, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High _Court, Indore 
Bench in Second Appeal No. 275 of 1962. 
D 
M. C. Chag/a and A. K. Nag, for the appellants. 
K. A. Chita/e and R.. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. 
This appeal is brought by special leave from 
the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High

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