STATE OF GUJARAT versus MALIBEN NATHUBHAI (D) THROUGH LRS &ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 01-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] 2 S.C.R. 779 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
MALIBEN NATHUBHA! (D) THROUGH LRS &'ORS. 
(Clvil Appeal No. 4164 of2007) 
FEBRUARY 01, 2017 
(MADAN B. LOKUR AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, .1976 - Inheritance 
A 
B 
- Karla of joint family died intestate in J 94 7, leaving behind his 
widow, two sons and two daughters - Plea of respondents that after 
C 
death of Karla, his widow acquired suit property and after c/eath of 
the widow, the two daughters acquired share through her - Held: 
Respondent-plaintiff was unable to show that this was the position · 
in Hindu Law in 1947 - On contrary, upon .the death·of the Karla 
of a joint family, his share will devolve only upon the remaining· 
coparceners which in the instant case were two sons - Therefore, 
D 
neither daughter had any share. in the land in question - Hindu 
Law. 
'··-
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 - ss. 6(1), 
8(4) and 33 -
Belated appeal before Tribunal after a lapse of eight 
years - Mai111ainabi/ity of -
Karla of joint family died intestate, 
E 
leaving behind his widow, two sons and two daughters - When the 
Act came into force, only one surviving son made declaration as 
the owner of entire land - Competent Author!ty and Deputy Collector 
passed an order on 16 December, 1983 declaring some of the land 
· as surplus land - Surviving son filed appeal - However, Tribunal 
F 
dismissed it 011 19 January, 1988 - In 1991, Respondents-plaintiffs 1 
(one surviving daughter and legal representatives of other daughter) 
preferred another appeal after eight years - Propriety of - Held: 
Delay was totally inexplicable - That apart, order dated. 16 
December, 1983 had merged with the order passed by the Tribunal 
011 19 January, 1988 - That being the position, Tribunal could not 
G 
have re-opened the proceedings which had already terminated before 
it - Thus, Tribunal was in error in entertaining the appeal filed by 
the plaintiffs after (1 gap of about eight years - Delay!Laches. 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 ~ s.6(}) -
Karla of joint family died intestate, leaving behind his widow: two 
H 
779 
780 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 2 S.C.R. 
sons and two daughters - When the Act came into force, only one 
surviving son made declaration as the owner of entire land -
Daughters of Karla did not make any claim in respect of the land in 
question neither filed any declaration uls.6(1) - However, thereafter, 
respondents-plaintiffs(one surviving daughter and legal 
representatives of other daughter) sought to claim a right in property 
- Held: Respondents-plaintiffs did not claim a right in property 
when they ought to have - By filing an appeal before Tribunal in 
1991, the respondents sought to make a claim. by a side-wind, 011 
the suit property without even by filing a declaration uls.6(1) of the 
Act - They cannot be permitted to indirectly make a claim which 
they failed to make directly. 
· 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Karta having died sometime in 1947 when 
two of his sons were still alive, neither widow nor daughters had 
any claim in the suit property of Karta under Hindu Law. Indeed, 
it is seen that neither daughter claimed any direct share in the 
suit property - they claimed a share through their mother but 
there is nothing to even suggest how their mother acquired any 
share in the suit property. Such an averment is completely missing 
from the pleadings of the plai!ltiffs. [Para 14] [784-H; 785-A-B] 
1.2 The plaintiffs has been unable to show any decision or 
any other material to substantiate his claim that on the death of 
Karta his widow acquired the suit property and on her death in 
1957, after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into operation, 
daughters of Karta acquired a share in the suit property through 
their widow mother. Plaintiff-respondents bas not placed any 
decision or any other material to show tbat this was the position · 
in Hindu Law in 1947 when Karla died intestate. On the otber 
hand, upon the death of the Karta of a joint family, his sbare will 
devolve only upon the remaining coparceners which in the 
present case were the two sons of Karla. It is therefore quite 
clear tbat neither ~idow nor daughters bad any sbare in tbe land 
in question. [Para 15] [785-C-E] 
1.3 The Tribunal was in error in entertaining the appeal 
filed by the plaintiffs after a gap of about eigbt years from the 
passage of the order dated 16th

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