IMPORTANT POINT
A son cannot succeed to ancestral property during lifetime of his father. In case of a son predeceasing his father, his sons or daughters will not have any right in the property.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 12th February, 2007 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (for short, ‘the High Court’) in Second Appeal No.84 of 2002, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, came to be confirmed.

2. The parties are related as under:

3. The appellant filed suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class – First, Shakti – District Bilaspur being Civil Suit No.31/A of 1985 asserting that the land situated in Village Barra, Tehsil Shakti, more particularly described in Schedule A of the plaint, was owned and possessed by Sukhdeo Chhannahu son of Sardha Chhannahu. Sukhdeo was a Hindu and governed by the Mitakshra Laws. The suit land came in the hands of Sukhdeo as ancestral property, in which Sukhdeo and his sons Janakram and Pilaram were having joint shares being coparceners. The appellant’s father Saheblal was the son of Janakram, who had another son by name Sonu (original defendant No. 4, who has died during the pendency of the present appeal). The appellant’s father Saheblal predeceased Janakram (his father) and Sukhdeo (his grand-father). He died in 1957, whereas Janakram died in 1982 and Sukhdeo, in 1965. Saheblal left behind Laxminbai, his wife and their daughter Radhabai (appellant/plaintiff). In this backdrop, the appellant asserted that she was entitled to a share in the suit property, claiming through her father Saheblal. The appellant’s mother had already expired in 1984 before filing of the suit in 1985.

4. It is the case of the appellant that after the death of her mother, the appellant came to village Barra and requested the Patwari of the village to mutate the land in her name. In response, she was told that the land had already been mutated in the name of Ram Narayan (defendant No.1), Jaya Narayan (defendant No. 2) and Rohit Kumar (defendant No.3) three sons of Sonu (deceased defendant No. 4), by virtue of the registered sale deed executed in their favour by Janakram on 21st July, 1979. It was further revealed that after the demise of Sukhdeo in 1965, his two sons Janakram and Pilaram partitioned the suit property in or around the year 1967, as a result of which, the suit property came to the exclusive share of Janakram and he had become absolute owner thereof, on the basis of which right, he executed registered sale deed in favour of his three grandsons (sons of his son Sonu (now deceased) defendant Nos.1 to 3 respectively).

5. Immediately after becoming aware of the above, in 1985, the appellant instituted the suit for declaration and possession and sought the following reliefs:

“(14): Prayer of the plaintiff is as under:

(i): The court should award decree about the possession of the relevant disputed land to the plaintiff;

I (a): By partitioning the disputed lands, half share be awarded to the plaintiff, and its land revenue should be determined separately.

(ii): The plaintiff may be awarded expenses of the suit.

(iii): Looking to the circumstances of the suit, whatsoever appropriate relief the court may consider it fit and just, the same may be awarded to the plaintiff.”

6. The respondents-defendants resisted the said suit. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as 9 issues, which read thus:

“ISSUES: CONCLUSION:

=============================================================

(1.): Whether, after the dea