2012 Supreme(Kar) 1120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Pandu and others —Appellant
Vs.
Laxmibai C. Subhadra and others —Respondent
RFA No. 696 of 2003
Decided on : 01-10-2012

The regrant of lands attached to a village office would enure to the benefit of the joint family.

Headnote:

HINDU LAW - SUCCESSION - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - SURVIVING COPARCENER - WIDOW'S ESTATE - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - KARNATAKA VILLAGE OFFICES ABOLITION ACT, 1961 - SECTION 4 - REGRANT OF LANDS - ENURES TO THE BENEFIT OF THE JOINT FAMILY - PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO HALF-SHARE IN THE SUIT PROPERTIES.

Fact of the Case:

The original propositus Venkat, died long prior to the year 1935. He had three children named Laxman, Mahadeo and Savakka. Savakka predeceased her brothers. Laxman died on 11/5/1947, leaving behind his widow Lakshmi Bai, who died in the year 1957. They had five children, Tuljabai, Venkat, Bharmanna, Gundu and Pandu. Mahadeo, the father of the plaintiffs died on 4/11/1935, leaving behind his widow, Nagubai and two minor daughters, i.e., the plaintiffs. The dispute in this case is between the legal representatives of Mahadeo and Laxman, the sons of original propositus, Venkat.

Finding of the Court:

The trial Court was right in decreeing half share which was succeeded to by Mahadeo when his father Venkat died. The other half share was succeeded to by Laxman, the first son of Venkat, the original holder of the village office.

Issues: 1. Do the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants? 2. Do the plaintiffs further prove that after the death of Mahadeo, his wife Nagubai and her two minor daughters, i.e., plaintiffs inherited undivided half-share in the suit properties being the legal representatives of said Mahadoe? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for half-share in the suit properties? 4. Do the defendants 1, 7 and 8 prove that the description of the suit properties given in the suit plaint is not correct? 5. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the suit? 6. Whether the Court fee paid by plaintiffs is not sufficient? 7. To what reliefs plaintiffs are entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The suit land was attached to a village office for rendering sanadi service by the grandfather of the plaintiffs. It is also a settled position that the suit land was not available for partition till regrant as it was impartible estate. 2. Even though the land is granted in favour of one or two members of the joint family it would enure to the other members of the joint family. 3. On the demise of Venkat, both Lakxman and Mahadeo, being his sons had succeeded to the land by survivorship to an extent of half share each. 4. Therefore, a vested right was created in both Laxman and Mahadeo to succeed to the half share in the suit land. 5. But, the suit land was not available for partition until the land was regranted after it stood vested in the State Government. 6. Therefore, the family continued to be joint and for the sake of convenience, the family members of Laxman and Mahadeo were cultivating the portions of the suit land independently. 7. Though Mahadeo died prior to the enforcement of the 1937 Act, his right to a half share in the suit land was not extinguished on his death. 8. His legal representatives were entitled to his vested right in the suit land to an extent of half share which he had succeeded to on the principle of survivorship on the death of his father Venkat. 9. Though there was no division of property by metes and bounds the joint family remained, as the suit land was impartible and, therefore, there could have been no division of the said land by metes and bounds as the land was attached to a village office. 10. But if the said land had been available for partition immediately on the demise of Venkat, then the right to succeed to half-share by Mahadeo by survivorship was a vested right. 11. Then he would have become the sole surviving co-parcener as far as his branch is concerned as he had no male heir. 12. Therefore, the suit land would have become his separate property to an extent of half-share and on his demise, his widow and two daughters would have inherited 1/3rd share each and on the demise of his widow in the year 1994, his two daughters would have succeeded to half-share each in the share of Mahadeo, i.e., 1/4th share each in the entire suit land. 13. But since the suit land being attached to a village office was impartible, no partition could have taken place by metes and bounds between the sons of Venkat. 14. The family continued to remain joint. 15. After the enforcement of the Act, the land should vested in the State Government and the family lost all rights in the said land and then suit land was not available with the family. 16. When the State Government regranted the land in the names of the successors of the original holder of the village office, namely Venkat, the land lost by the family was regained by the family and became available for partition. 17. This regrant of land has to be related to the original holder of the village office as the original holder of the village office is entitled to regrant and on his demise his successor/s were entitled to apply for regrant. 18. Therefore, it must be deemed to have become available for partition on the demise of the original holder of the village office. 19. It is in this context that in the decisions referred to above it has been observed that the regrant of lands attached to village office would enure to the benefit of the joint family. 20. Therefore, on the demises of the Venkat, the original holder of the village office, both his sons namely, Laxman and Mahadeo succeeded to the suit lands to an extent of half share each which created a vested right in them to an extent of half share each. 21. After the re-grant of the said lands, it became available for partition and separate possession. 22. Since Mahadeo had a vested right to succeed to half share in the suit lands on the demise of his father but could not claim separate possession of the said lands by metes and bounds on account of impartibility of the estate, the family continued to cultivate the lands joint family. 23. But for the impartibility of the lands, it could have been divided by metes and bounds on the demise of his father. 24. In the years thereafter the family lost all rights in the lands on the abolition of the village office and resulting in the land being vested in the State Government. 25. The regrant of the lands in the name of one of the members of the family revived the right of the successors of the original holder of the village office to succeed to the lands. 26. The death of Mahadeo in the intervening period did not extinguish his right to succeed to the suit lands as the order of regrant would relate back to the original holder of the village office. 27. His demise opened the inheritance for his survivors to inherit the lands. 28. Since the inheritance was postponed on account of the impartibility of the suit land and in the interregnum Mahadeo died would not imply that the heirs of Mahadeo had lost their right to inherit/succeed to the suit land.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.