9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of the fiction in the Explanation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 2. Determination of the plaintiff's share in the suit property. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope of the Fiction in the Explanation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: The first issue pertains to the interpretation of the legal fiction introduced by Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court examined whether this fiction should be interpreted as broadly as in Rangubai v. Laxman, which held that the shares of persons other than the deceased coparcener become fixed as if a partition had taken place during the deceased coparcener's lifetime. The court acknowledged that there are two possible interpretations of the legal fiction: one that extends the fiction to assume all consequences of a real partition and another that limits the fiction to its intended purpose without stretching beyond it. The court decided to proceed on the assumption that the fiction should not be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to quantify the share of the deceased coparcener for the purpose of devolution by testamentary or intestate succession. 2. Determination of the Plaintiff's Share in the Suit Property: The second issue involved determining the plaintiff's share in the family property. The court examined the facts of the case, including the death of Shridhar, the adopted son, and the subsequent devolution of his share. Shridhar's share was deemed to be 1/3rd of the joint family property, and upon his death, this share was to be divided equally between his mother Laxmibai and his widow Shantabai. The court also considered the right of Laxmibai, as a mother, to claim a share equal to that of a son upon a notional partition as contemplated by Explanation 1 to Section 6. Consequently, Laxmibai was entitled to 1/3rd share in the joint family property due to the notional partition and an additional 1/6th share as an heir of Shridhar, totaling 1/2 share in the family property. Upon Laxmibai's death, her 1/2 share was equally divided between her husband Narayanrao and her daughter, the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff being entitled to a 1/4th share in the suit property. Conclusion: The court concluded that the plaintiff, Sushilabai, is entitled to a 1/4th share in the suit property. The detailed analysis of the issues involved demonstrates the court's reliance on the legal fiction provided in Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the application of Shastric Hindu law principles to determine the plaintiff's share. The court also highlighted the legislative intent to enlarge the rights of female heirs under Hindu law, reinforcing the plaintiff's entitlement to her share. The remaining issues, if any, were left to be decided by the Division Bench in light of the quantum of the plaintiff's share determined by the Full Bench.
|
