Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. As rightly held by the Courts below, considering the devolution of interest under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property derived by the first defendant from his father Kaveri could only be construed as his separate property and the same cannot be held as the ancestral property. In this connection, the Courts below had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1986) 3 SCC 567 (Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and others Vs. Chander Sen and others) wherein the position of law with reference to the abovesaid aspects has been outlined as follows:-

Held: As per the provisions of Hindu http://www.judis.nic.in and Succession Act, 1956, considering the devolution of interest under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, amongst the Class – I heirs, the properties derived by the first defendant from his father could only be treated as his separate properties and not as thejoint family properties of the first defendant and his children viz., the plaintiff 2 and 3. A perusal of the decisions would go to show that when the son inherits the property, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, he does nto take it as Kartha of his own undivied family, but take it in his individual capacity. Therefore, it could be seen that as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court and our High Court, the suit properties derived by the first defendant under Ex.A6 could only be treated as the separate properties of the first defendant and not the joint family properties of the first defendant and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as claimed by the plaintiffs. It could be seen that in toto, on a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8, 19 and 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if the self acquired property or joint family property, once http://www.judis.nic.in and they get devolved in accordance with Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons, who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. When it is found that as per law, the properties derived by the first defendant under Ex.A6 are his separate properties, the Courts below have erred in findings fault on the part of the defendant in describing the suit properties as his own properties in the sale transaction Ex.B1. Terefore, it could be seen that the first defendant has rightly described the suit properties as his own properties in Ex.B1 sale deed. So, when it could be seen that the suit properties are the separate properties of the first defendant and when there is no impediment on his part to alienate the same and when as found earlier, the first defendant is not shown to have been indulging in illegal/immoral activities or excluded the plaintiffs and discarded their interest and welfare, it could be seen that the first defendant is not required to seek http://www.judis.nic.in and sanction from the court to convey his separate properties in favour of the second defendant. Further, it could be seen that when it is found that the suit properties are the separate properties of the first defendant, the claim of 2/3 share by the plaintiffs 2 & 3 on the footing that the suit properties are the joint family properties of the first defendant and the plaintiffs 2 & 3 and in particular, the second plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the properties as the suit properties are the separate properties of the first defendant.

13. In the light of the abovesaid authorities, Kaveri having been succeeded by his wife and three sons and the suit property being the separate property of Kaveri, in such view of the matter, as per the devolution of interest under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, during the life time of the father, the grand son or grand daughter cannot lay a claim of partition in the property derived by his father from his father and in such view of the matter, the plaintiffs being only the children and wife of the first defendant, the first defendant having derived the suit property, as put forth by him, as the separate property during his life time, the plaintiffs cannot lay any claim of share in the suit property and in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to be justified in declining the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs.