Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: stepson in State Of Gujarat vs Harendrrakumar Natwarsinhji ... on 17 December, 2025Matching Fragments
6. On the aforesaid two issues, while assailing the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge, it was argued by Ms. NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/41/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State - respondents that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in giving one unit each to the adopted son, namely Udaybansinhji, and stepson of the original owner, namely Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji.
7. It was submitted that the adopted son, namely Udaybansinhji, was not alive as on 01.04.1976 and hence, one unit for him could not have been allotted considering the amendment brought with effect from 01.04.1976 bringing sub-section (3-C) into Section 6 of the Act, 1960.
8. With regard to the one unit allotted to Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, stepson of the original owner, it was argued that Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, being son of the second wife from her first marriage, could not have been included in the family of the original owner as opined by the learned Single Judge. It was, thus, submitted that the stepson could not have been included within the meaning of "major son" of the original owner so as to attract the provisions of sub- section (3-C) of Section 6 of the Act, 1960.
15. With regard to the step son, namely, Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, suffice it to say that nowhere in the scheme of the Act, 1960, stepson has been excluded.
16. The definition of "joint family", "owner" and "person" in Sections 2(16), (20) and (21) are relevant for our purposes and are extracted hereinunder:-
"2(16) "Joint family" means an undivided Hindu family and in the case of other persons a group or unit the members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence;
21. Sub-section (3-C) of Section 6, contains a deeming fiction requiring the major son to be treated as a separate person for the purposes of sub-section (1). There is no exclusion of the stepson or adopted son from the scheme of the Act as "major son" has not been defined or mean to exclude anyone or both of them.
22. Further, in view of the findings that Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, who is stated to be the stepson of the original owner, right from his birth was residing with the original owner, we find that Harendrakumar Natwarsinhji, stepson of the original owner was entitled to one unit as a separate person within the scheme of Section 6 of the Act, 1960 and has rightly been recognized, as such, by the learned Single Judge.