LexSUKHRAM & ANOTHER versus GAURI SHANKAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
476 SUKHRAM & ANOTHER v. GAURI SHANKAR & ANR. September 11, 1967. [J. c. SHAH,§ M. S!KRI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ .) Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956, s. 14(1)-Coparcenary uoverned B: b11 Benares Schoo! of Mitakshara rule that male coparcener cannot alienate his share of property without assent of other. caparceners- Whether applicable to widow's interest under s. 14(1). The first appellant, his brother H and his son the second ap- pellant, constituted a Hindu Joint family and were governed by the Mitakshara law of the Benares School. H died in 1952 leaving him surviving his widow. On December 15, 1956, the widow sold a half c share in a house and a shop belonging to the joint family to the first respondent. The appellants filed a suit for a decree declaring that the sale by the widow was without consideration and for 811 order can- celling the sale deed. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and. in appeal, by the High Court. In appeal to this Court it was contended ·on behalf of the appel- lants that under the Benares School of the Mitabhara, a male copar- D cener is not entitled to alienate even for value, his undivided interest in coparcenary property without the consent' cif the other coparceners except in certain specified cases, and by s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succes- sion Act 30 of 1956 it could not have been intended to confer a larger right on the \vidovo- of a coparcener, HELD: On the death of her husband, the widow became entitled to the same foterest which H had in the joint family property under & s. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 18 of 1937, in the joint family property. Of that interest, b)• virtue of s.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, she became full owner on June 17, 1956 and being full owner she was competent lo sell it for her own pur- pose without the consent of the m.ale coparceners of her husband. [477D-G] A male member of a Hindu family governed by the Benares F School of Hindu Law is undoubtedly subject to restrictions qua alienation of his interest in the joint family property. but a w;dow acquiring an interest in that property by virtue of the Hindu Succes- sion Act is not subject to any such restrictions. That is however not a ground for importing limitations which the Parliament has not chosen to impose. [478F] Madho Parshad v. Mehrban Singh, L.R. 17 I.A. 194: Balgobind G Das v. Narain La! and Ors, L.R. 20 I.A. 116 and Chandradeo Singh & Ors. v. Mata Prasad & Anr. I.L.R. 31 All. 176 (F.B.); referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1965. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 15, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2434 of 1960. H N.C. Chatterjee, E. C. Agarwala, Kartar Singh and P.C. Agar- wala, for the appellants. J. P. Goyal and B. P. 1'1a. for the respondents. Sl'KllRAM V GAl RI SH.IXKAI: (Sh(llt, J,) 477 A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Hukam Singh and Sukhram-the lirst appellant in this appeal-were two brothers. Chidda-the second appellant, is the son of Sukhram, Hukam Singh, Sukhram and Chidda consti- tuted a Hindu joint family and were governed by the Mitakshara Law of the Benares School. Hukam Singh died in 1952 leaving B him surviving his wife Kishan Devi. On December 15, 1956, Kishan Devi sold a half share in a house and a shop belonging to the joint family, to Gauri Shankar. Sukhram and his son Chidda then com- menced an action in the Court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad for a decree declaring that the sale by Kishan Devi to Gauri Shankar was without consicferation, and for an order cancelling the sale 0 deed. The suit was dismissed by the Court of First Instance, the District Court, Meerut, and the High Court of Allahabad. In this appeal the only question which falls to be determined is whether the sale deed executed by Kishan Devi was binding upon the cor-11rceners of her husband. On the death of Hukam Singh in 1952, it is common ground Kishan Devi acquired by virtue of D s. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 18 of 1937, the same interest in the property of the joint family which Hukam Singh had. That interest was limited interest known as the 'Hindu Woman's estate': s. 3(3) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. The Parliament enacted The Hindu Succession Act 30 E of 1956, which by s. 14(1) provided that- "Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.