Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: devolved in Ms. Kashish vs Sh Ravi Sachan on 27 February, 2016Matching Fragments
(i)Amit Johari Vs. Deepak Johari 2003 IV, AD (Delhi)
(ii) Pratap Vs. Shiv Shankar,2009 X AD (Delhi)97.
24.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed in Amit Johari's case with this effect that ;
"It has been held in a series of judicial pronouncements that under section 8 of the CS no. 200/14 Kashish Vs. Ravi Sachan & Ors Page no.14/20 Act, a property that devolves on a Hindu cannot be treated as an HUF property in his hands, Visavis his own sons. As observed by this Court in the case of Bharat Bhushan Maggon Vs. Joginder lal and Ors ( CS(OS) No. 116/2012), decided on 15.10.2012, the Hindu Succession Act lays down rules of succession in the case of males. The first rule is that the property of a male Hindu dying interstate shall devolve according to the provisions of Chapter II, as stipulated in the aforesaid provision. Sub section (a) of Section 8 of the Act provides that the property of a male dying interstate shall devolve firstly upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule. The List of heirs mentioned in Class I of the Schedule shows that it includes sons, daughters etc as also son of the pre deceased son, but does not specifically include the grandson, being the son of a living son. Under the Hindu law, as soon as a son is born, he gets a share in his father's property and becomes a part of the coparcenery. Such a right accrues in favour of the son by virtue of his birth and not on the date of demise of the father or inheritance from the father. However, under Section 8 of the Act, the property that devolves on a Hindu would not be an HUF property in his hand, visa vis his own sons.
CS no. 200/14 Kashish Vs. Ravi Sachan & Ors Page no.15/20
25. Hon'ble High court of Delhi has also observed in para no. 8 of Pratap Singh's case with this effect that: " A single judge of this court in the case of Rahul Behl and others Vs. Smt Ichayan Behl and others reported in DRJ 1981 (21) 205 followed the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and rejected the plaint of the plaintiff therein, who had filed a suit for declaration against their grandmother and their father on the ground that the residential house situated in Greater Kailash Part I was a self acquired property of their grandfather and upon his demise, the property fell into HUF and become a coparcenery property, thus resulted in plaintiffs acquiring a share therein as coparceners on their birth. On an application filed by defendants therein seeking rejection of plaint under order 7 Rule 11CPC , the court held that father of the plaintiffs acquired a share in the suit property in his individual capacity as a heir of his deceased father and not as a coparcenery property. Thus by applying the provisions of section 8 of the Act, the single judge held that defendant no.2 therein alone inherited the property to the exclusion his sons because the said property devolved on him in his individual capacity and became his self acquired property, and CS no. 200/14 Kashish Vs. Ravi Sachan & Ors Page no.16/20 therefore, could not form a part of or become a coparcenery property.
26.It is worth to note here that the aforesaid Principal of law is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In the present case,defendant no.1 who is the father of plaintiff has inherited the suit property(Delhi property) from his father to the exclusion of her daughter (plaintiff) because the said property devolve on him in his individual capacity and same became his self acquired property, therefore, said property cannot be said as a coparcenery property.