9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether plaintiff no. 2 Suresh Chandra, at the time of his adoption by plaintiff no. 1, became a coparcener of Dulichand in the joint family properties. 2. Whether the rights of the Inamdar's tenants were heritable under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. 3. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. Detailed Analysis: 1. Coparcenary Status of Plaintiff No. 2 Suresh Chandra: The primary issue was whether Suresh Chandra, upon adoption by Bhagirath's widow, became a coparcener in the joint family properties. The High Court had held that Suresh Chandra did not obtain coparcenary interest because Dulichand was the sole coparcener at the time of adoption. However, the Supreme Court noted that under the Hindu system of law, a joint family may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members. The properties, being ancestral, retained their character as coparcenary properties even with Dulichand as the sole surviving coparcener. The Court referenced the case of Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, which held that property in the hands of a single coparcener remains joint family property. The Court concluded that upon adoption, Suresh Chandra became a coparcener with Dulichand, thus entitled to the joint family properties. 2. Heritability of Inamdar's Tenants' Rights: The respondent argued that the rights of the Inamdar's tenants were not heritable under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that in the absence of special statutory provisions, the heritability of ordinary tenancies must be governed by personal law. The Court pointed out that Section 86 of the Act, which deals with the mutation of names, applies to all classes of tenants and contemplates heritability and transferability of tenant rights. Therefore, the rights of Dulichand were indeed heritable. 3. Jurisdiction of Civil Court: The respondent contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. This issue was decided against the respondent by both the trial court and the first appellate court, and the decision was not challenged in the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that it was not permissible for the respondent to raise this question at this stage. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and restored the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Indore. The appeal was allowed with costs, affirming that Suresh Chandra, upon adoption, became a coparcener in the joint family properties and that the rights of Dulichand were heritable. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was upheld.
|
