9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the suit property 2. Right to claim partition by the widow 3. Devolution of the deceased's interest in the joint family property 4. Applicability of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 5. Claim for marriage expenses of minor daughters Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Suit Property: The primary issue was whether the immovable property, Shanker Niwas, was the self-acquired property of the deceased Nandshanker Vishvanath Bhatt or joint family property. The plaintiff claimed it was self-acquired, while the defendants contended it was acquired from joint family funds. The court held that "the suit property was not the self acquired property of the deceased Nandshanker but it was a joint family property in the hands of the deceased." The plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the property was built with her husband's own earnings, whereas evidence indicated the property was constructed from joint family funds. 2. Right to Claim Partition by the Widow: The court examined whether the widow could claim partition of the joint family property. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to a share as the widow of the deceased. The court noted that under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, a widow had the right to claim partition, but this Act was repealed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the court interpreted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, stating that "the moment the interest of the deceased in the joint family property is severed, the joint family status would come to an end and it would be open to the widow to claim partition therein." Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to claim partition and obtain physical possession of her share. 3. Devolution of the Deceased's Interest in the Joint Family Property: The court discussed the devolution of the deceased's interest in the joint family property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It stated, "if the deceased left amongst his heirs, females specified in class I of the schedule... the interest of the deceased shall not devolve by survivorship but shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession." The court concluded that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 would each be entitled to 1/3 share in the joint family property, and the plaintiff and all defendants would be entitled to 1/6 share in the 1/3 share of the deceased. 4. Applicability of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 23 of the Act was invoked, which restricts the right of female heirs to claim partition of a dwelling house wholly occupied by family members until male heirs choose to divide their shares. The court acknowledged that "the first floor of the suit property is occupied by the plaintiff as well as all the defendants and they are in exclusive possession of specified portion thereof." Therefore, no partition was ordered for the first floor, and the family members could continue to occupy it until defendant No. 1 chose to divide the shares. 5. Claim for Marriage Expenses of Minor Daughters: The plaintiff sought Rs. 5000 for the marriage expenses of defendants Nos. 4 and 5, who were minors. The court noted that "the plaintiff who is the mother of these two daughters... is getting 1/3+1/18 share in the suit property." Given this share, the court concluded that it was not necessary to pass an order for marriage expenses, as the plaintiff could meet these expenses from her share. Conclusion: The appeal partly succeeded. The court modified the judgment and decree, declaring that the plaintiff would get 1/3 plus 1/18 share in the suit property, defendant No. 1 would get 1/3 plus 1/18 share, and each of the defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 would get 1/18 share. The physical partition was to be made for the ground floor and out-houses, while the first floor would remain for the family's residence until further division by defendant No. 1. The cross-objections were dismissed without orders as to costs.
|
