Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. On proper scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial Court although advented to Sections 6, 8 etc. of the Hindu Succession Act but while considering the notional partition some calculation errors have been made. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 runs as follows:

Devolution of interest in co-parcenary properly. When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest, in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act:

Provided that, if the deceased had left surviving him a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative, specified in that class who claims, through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in Mitakshara co-parcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be under this Act and not by survivorship.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

Explanation 2.-Nothing contained in the proviso to this section shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself from the co-parcenary before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein.

If we construe the first paragraph along with the Explanation-1 of Section 6 then it becomes clear that the devolution of shares in the co-parcenary property shall go by survivorship on a notional partition being made immediately before the death of male coparcener. In the present case following that principle Ram Niranjan Dayal had two wives, two sons and four daughters but if notional partition is to be construed as Ram Niranjan Dayal died on 25.6.1958 then the property would devolve by survivorship and not intestate succession and in that way the shares will devolve in the following manner: (i) Ram Niranjan Dayal 1/4th Share: (ii) two wives Tetar Kuer and Tirkalo Devi jointly 1/4th share; (iii) Suryanarain Dayal son 1/4th share (iv) Shyamnarain Dayal, son 1/4th share. After the death of Ram Niranjan Dayal his 1/4th share as mentioned above would devolve as per intestate succession as contained under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and all the heirs who are parties to the partition suit being Class I heirs, the devolution would be in the following manner: Regarding 1/4th share of Ram Niranjan Dayal he left behind wives, two sons and four daughters, so each would get 1/7th of the 1/4th share of Ram Niranjan Dayal. In that way, the plaintiff Lila Devi would get 1/20th share while Tetar Kuer and Jirkalo Devi jointly would get 1/4th 1/28th Similarly, Suryanarain Dayal and Shyamnarain Dayal would get 1/4th + 1/28th share each. The other three daughters, Kamla Devi, Mayal Devi and Pritlata would get 1/28th share each. Now the plaintiff Lila Devi has claimed share over her mother's property namely Tetar Kuer. Whether Tetar Kuer's share can be devolved as per succession or not is the question to be decided. As per the Hindu Law the female coparcener gets the share with the right of survivorship. When two wives were there they would get the share of the wife as per devolution jointly and their shares remained joint for the purpose of survivorship as one unit and their shares cannot be construed as half & half share over the share received by survivorship having the right of other coparceners to get the share by survivorship from them. It has become the settled principle of law that two wives receiving the shares should be construed as joint tenant and not with the principle of tenant in common and in that way Tetar Kuer's share as a joint tenant with Jirkalo Devi on her death would not go by inheritance but by survivorship and hence whatever shares two wives got would remain as a unit for the share of the wives and, as such. Tetar Kuer's share cannot be construed as a half share along with Jirkalo Devi for the purpose of succession rather the same shall be survived on Jirkalo Devi on death of Tetar Kuer on 17.1.1987 and in that way Lila Devi the plaintiff would not be entitled to get share of Tetar Kuer so long Jirkalo Devi remains alive. Thus, the devolution and succession of the properties should remain in the following manner:

(i) Lila Devi plaintiff 1/28th

(ii) Jirkalo Devi defendant No. 6 1/4th + 1/28th

(iii) Surajnarain Dayal Defendant No. 1. 1/4th + 1/28th

(iv) Shyamnarain Dayal defendant No. 2 1/4th + 1/28th

(v) Kamla Devi defendant No. 3. 1/28th

(vi) Maya Devi defendant No. 4. 1/28th

(vii) Prti Lata defendant No. 5. 1/28th

8. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel regarding the devolution of the share of Tetar Kuer as claimed from the side of the plaintiff Lila Devi has negatived by referring to the principle of joint tenancy and tenancy in common and in this respect he has referred to a judgment of the apex Court as and Ors. v. Nagarathinathachi wherein it was held that as per the provisions of the Hindu Law co-widows inherits the husband's property as joint tenant with, the rights of survivorship and not as tenant in common for the purpose of intestate succession as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. In that judgment, it has been elaborately discussed by the apex Court as to the rights of the co-widows on the inherited property from their husband. Therein, it was held that even in the life time of the co-widows they can get their shares partitioned for the purpose of proper enjoyment and may have separate allotments but such allotments even if it is there that is subject to the right of the survivorship and not to be construed as an absolute right. In the present case, there is no evidence to the effect that Tetar Kuer and Jirkalo Devi had got their shares separated rather it. remained with them being jointly possessed not only by them alone but also by the other coparceners and when partitions come in then their share should be devolved by survivorship and not intestate succession.