Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.49 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Shyam Narayan Prasad vs Krishna Prasad on 2 July, 2018
DISCUSSION AND REASONING
[10] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone
through the paper-book, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s)
made on behalf of the appellant(s)-plaintiff(s).
[11] The core question involved in the present appeal is as to
whether the property in the hands of Sardha son of Mussadi was of
ancestral nature. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shyam Narayan Prasad v.
Krishna Prasad reported as 2018(7) SCC 646 has reiterated that it is well-
settled principle of law that the property inherited by a male Hindu from his
father, father's father or father's father's father is an ancestral property.
Hari Kishan And Ors vs Rati Ram And Ors on 18 September, 2018
Further, this Court in Hari Krishan v. Rati Ram reported as 2018(4) PLR
783 has held that the ancestral nature of the property has to be proved in
terms of excerpt, pedigree table and as per requirement of Volume 1,
Chapter 9, Rules 5 and 6 of High Court Rules and Orders. The burden of
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2026 03:01:28 :::
RSA No. 4986 of 2011 (O&M) -7-
proof lies on the person asserting the land to be ancestral in nature. It needs
to be duly proved that the property has devolved upon him from the
immediate three preceding generations. The relevant extract thereof is
reproduced hereunder:-
Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan vs Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi(D) Tr.Lrs. on 27 September, 2022
[13] Be that as it may, it be noticed here that in terms of Will dated
11.02.1975, which was proved on record as Exhibit D-1, the subject
property was bequeath in favour of Sadhu Ram and Krishan, both sons of
Sardha to the extent of 2/3rd and 1/3rd share each respectively; however,
Krishan son of Sardha, though one of the beneficiary, was never arrayed as
defendant in the suit despite being a necessary party. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi
reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 1307 has held that a necessary party is a
person who ought to have been joined and, in whose absence, no effective
decree could be passed by the Court. The Court further laid down the twin
requirements for determining whether a party is a necessary party - first,
that there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the
controversies involved in the proceedings; and second, that no effective
decree can be passed in the absence of such a party. Thus, if a necessary
party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. The relevant
portion thereof is extracted hereunder:-
1