Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. Having thus noted that the properties mentioned in the deed of partition are HUF properties, we now examine Plaintiff's claim for a share therein. The original Plaintiff claims to be the member of that HUF. She has applied for her share in the property upon the partition being made by the male members of the HUF. Her claim is in her capacity as a Hindu widow and as a member of the HUF under the uncodified Hindu Law relating to partition. The genealogy set out above shows the Defendants who executed the partial partition, their father Parshuram II, his father Shankarrao and his father Sir Parshuram Bhau, the Rajesaheb of Jamkhandi as the generations upon whom coparcenery interest would devolve from and survive. The original Plaintiff falls within the said 4 generations. She therefore claims to be a widow of a deceased coparcener and a member of the HUF. This HUF would therefore consist of Sir Parshuram Bhau, his son Shankarrao, his son's son Parshuram II and his son's son's sons Defendants 1 and 2. The first three from these having expired, Defendant No. 1 became and claims to be the Karta as shown in the Partition Deed itself. The HUF until then consisted of aforesaid 4 generations. It is the Plaintiff's case that the coparceners of these generations, if alive, would therefore be entitled to a share on partition being claimed by any of them. Upon their death their widows would be entitled to claim partition.

36. The Defendants contend that the properties of the Ruler of Jamkhandi were impartiable properties. None could have demanded a partition of the properties of the Ruler. In fact the Ruler himself could not demand such partition. The original Plaintiff also did not ask for partition, though the Jamkhandi Act applied to her. That was because no partition of the Rulers' properties could be sought. They were his absolute properties and do not belong to any HUF. Therefore those properties could devolve only by succession. The Ruler in fact executed the Will on 15th January 1918. His son Shankarrao became the absolute owner under the Rule of Primogeniture. The Defendants further contend that knowing this state of affairs, the Ruler Sir Parshuram Bhau bequeathed interalia Rs. 1 Lakh to the original Plaintiff and Rs. 1 Lakh to his daughter. He also granted further rights upon both these persons as enumerated in his Will including the maintenance of Rs. 1250/- per month to be paid to the original Plaintiff. It is their contention that these amounts were rather steep in those times and upon that the legacy having taken effect, the original Plaintiff as well as Sir Parshuram Bhau's daughter cannot have any other interest in the properties of the Ruler. The Defendants contend that the said Act was a municipal law which did not apply to the Sovereign. The impartible properties of the Ruler cannot come under the scope of Section 1 of the Jamkhandi Act, and hence, the original Plaintiff cannot claim any rights thereunder.

Where the net annual income of the share of husband of the widow is more than Rs. 1200/-, the share of her husband shall be deemed to be only such property as would yield an income of Rs. 1200/-.

Essentially this Act is a legislation to prevent vagrancy. The object of the Act as stated therein shows that it would elevate the Hindu Widow to a satisfactory level, which until then she was not entitled to. But that was all. Thus under that Act the right to partition was only a limited right. The Hindu widow could therefore, claim maintenance to the extent of Rs. 1200/- p.a. or a right to partition. This was without the right of alienation and for her life time only. The original Plaintiff's maintenance was far larger than the ceiling limit under the Act since she was given Rs. 1250/- per month as against the ceiling of Rs. 1200/-per annum. Hence, independent of the question of the applicability of the Act to the estaste of sovereign, she had no case to seek partition and that too with any right of alienation and for her share to devolve on her heirs.

119. It is shown on behalf of the Plaintiffs that in fact it has been the case of the Defendants 2 and 3 in their written statement that the said property devolved by survivorship from Sir Parshuram Bhau to Shri Shankarrao and thereafter to Parshuram II and upon his death in 1953 to the Defendants as his heirs. Consequently the case of the Defendants 2 and 3 in their written statement is that they cannot be divested of the Estate after 3 generations. This very case shows that the said property (as also several other such properties initially of Sir Parshuram) devolved by survivorship which is a legal consequence only of a HUF property. Only the properties which survived to the heirs of a HUF can be partitioned. The case in the written statement of survivorship and the partial partition of 1973 therefore conclusively show the nature of the properties as well as how the Defendants took them to be.