1965 (8) TMI 101 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
2. Widow's entitlement to a share in the coparcenary property.
3. Application of legal fictions in determining shares.
4. Impact of the Hindu Succession Act and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act on traditional Hindu law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The appeal raises the important question of interpreting Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The section recognizes the principle of Hindu law that coparcenary property devolves by survivorship but qualifies this by stating that if the deceased left behind certain female relatives or male relatives claiming through such female relatives, the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, not by survivorship.

2. Widow's Entitlement to a Share in the Coparcenary Property:
The plaintiff, a widow, claimed half share in the property left by her deceased husband. The trial court granted her one-sixth share, which was slightly modified and confirmed by the assistant judge. The widow argued she is entitled to one-third share at a notional partition and half of the one-third share on succession to her husband's share, totaling one-half of the whole property. The court considered the nature of the wife's or mother's right to a share at a partition between her husband and sons, referencing historical cases and legal texts that discuss the wife's entitlement to a share in the coparcenary property upon partition.

3. Application of Legal Fictions in Determining Shares:
The court examined the legal fiction introduced by the Explanation to Section 6, which deems the interest of the Hindu Mitakshara coparcener to be the share that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death. This legal fiction implies that the property available to the deceased would be divisible among his heirs. The court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Munnalal v. Rajkumar, which held that the rights of a wife or mother to a share on partition is not merely a personal right for maintenance but a right in the property itself.

4. Impact of the Hindu Succession Act and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act on Traditional Hindu Law:
The court discussed the impact of the Hindu Succession Act and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act on traditional Hindu law. It was argued that the wife's or mother's right to a share at partition is abrogated by these acts. However, the court held that the rights to a share on partition or provisions for maintenance and marriage expenses are not merely personal rights but rights in the coparcenary property, thus not abrogated by the acts. The court emphasized the legislative intent to provide for the rights of females in the coparcenary property.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that when determining the interest of the deceased coparcener, the property available for partition should be determined, setting aside the share to which the widow is entitled in her own right, and then dividing the deceased's share among the heirs. The court modified the decree of the lower courts, granting the plaintiff one-half share instead of one-sixth share and remitted the case to the trial court for effecting partition in accordance with the preliminary decree within two months. The court ordered the parties to bear their own costs throughout due to the complexity of the question involved.