Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. On the question of which properties were part of the HUF at the time of the death of Bakshi Ram, i.e. on 10.02.1960, the learned Single Judge, based on admissions of the first and second defendants in the form of the partnership deed dated 1st April, 1968, held that the following properties were held jointly: a) the house at Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, b) Plot No. 43 comprising khasra number 36/28/2 and 36/29/2 at Village Badarpur, Delhi, c) plot of land bearing khasra number 32/28/1 and 32/28/2 at village Badarpur, Delhi, d) plot of land bearing number 231, village Tejpaul, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi and finally, e) a plot of land in Tughlakabad. Of these properties, Bakshi Ram's 1/5th share (the entire share being divided between the five members of the family who would share in the coparcenary, i.e. him, his wife, and three sons) would devolve upon the eight children and late Bakshi Ram's widow. Thus, the learned Single Judge held that each of the plaintiffs would be entitled to a 1/8th share of the 1/5th share of late Bakshi Ram. However, with respect to the house at Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, the Single Judge held that the plaintiffs had, by way of a registered relinquishment deed (which was admitted by the plaintiffs), surrendered any claim over that property to Sudarshan Lal. Further, with respect to Plot No. 43 comprising khasra number 36/28/2 and 36/29/2 at Village Badarpur, Delhi, the Single Judge held that it was admitted and established that the property stand mutated in RFA(OS) 11/2010 Page 15 the name of the mother, Smt. Chanan Devi, as the bhumidar and thus, the provisions of Section 51 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 would apply, despite the fact that the land may have been urbanized. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge held that under Section 51, only male members of the family would be entitled to the land, and the plaintiffs would be excluded from any share. Thus, in conclusion, the learned Single Judge held that the only properties in which the plaintiffs could have a share are those which were admitted in the partnership deed dated 1st April, 1968 minus those over which the claim was relinquished, or that were regulated by the Delhi Land Reforms Act. This, the learned Single Judge noted, left three properties in which the plaintiffs had a share, i.e. a) plot of land bearing khasra number 32/28/1 and 32/28/2 at village Badarpur, Delhi, b) plot of land bearing number 231, village Tejpaul, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi and finally, c) a plot of land in Tughlakabad. However, the learned Single Judge held that Section 185 of the Land Reform Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts with respect to properties governed by the Act, irrespective of whether the lands were mutated in favour of the HUF or any individual family member. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge held that none of the three properties could be partitioned in this suit, given the bar under Section

20. Accordingly, the mere death of a family member does not lead to a division of the coparcenary interest, but rather, a revision of it amongst the remaining coparcenors. This revision of the coparcenary interest was, in 1960, when Bakshi Ram died, regulated by the un- amended Section 6 of the HSA, which read as follows:

"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 him surviving 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 the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship.
Explanation I: 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 RFA(OS) 11/2010 Page 21 taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not."

34. In view of the above discussion, the Court must now determine the shares of the parties to the various properties in question. Before the addressing the sequence of events beginning from the death of Bakshi Ram, it is essential to recollect that Sudarshan Lal died issueless, without any female Class I heirs, and thus, on his demise, the rule of survivorship under the unamended Section 6 applied, and the coparcenary property was redistributed between the remaining coparcenors, his father Bakshi Ram and two brothers. Subsequently, on the death of Bakshi Ram in 1960, as he was survived by his widow, and five daughters (Class I heirs under the Schedule to the HSA), the proviso to the unamended Section 6, as it was in force at the time, applied. Accordingly, if a deemed partition were to take place, Bakshi Ram, his two living sons, Kulbhushan Lal, and Madan Mohan Sharma would each get a 1/3rd share in the coparcenary property. Given the RFA(OS) 11/2010 Page 34 death of Bakshi Ram, and the operation of Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 (read along with Section 14, HSA, which makes the life estate granted by the 1937 Act an absolute interest), Bakshi Ram, the two sons and Chanan Devi would have each acquired a 1/4th share. Bakshi Ram's 1/4th share, then, in terms of the proviso, read with Section 8, devolve upon to his class I heirs equally in 8 parts, i.e. his wife, and 7 living children. Thus, the 7 living children received a 1/32 share, and Chaman Devi received a 9/32 share (i.e. 1/4 plus 1/32). Of the remaining 1/2 of the coparcenary share left undivided after Bakshi Ram's death, the 2 living male members shared it equally, i.e. 1/4. Subsequently, as per Section 15(1), HSA, on Chanan Devi's death, her 9/32 share devolved upon her 7 living children in equal proportions, i.e. each held a 9/224 share. Then, with the passage of the 2005 amendment, the 5 daughters each acquired a share in the coparcenary, along with the 2 male members. As noted above, the remaining share in the coparcenary was 1/2, and thus, each of the 7 members hold 1/14 as coparcenors, which by virtue of this suit, is now sought to be divided. In sum, the shares of the parties are as follows: 1/32 share each as succession from the death of Bakshi Ram, 9/224 share each as succession from Chanan Devi, and 1/14 each as coparcenors. Thus, the share of each of the 7 children is 1/32 plus 9/224 plus 1/14, which equals 1/7. In other words, each of the 7 persons has an equal share in the coparcenary properties.