JUDGMENT - Dhanuka D.R., J.:—This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 9th November, 1993, passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Satara, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1990 arising from Regular Civil Suit No. 91 of 1984 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Khandala.

2. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 3 are brothers. The defendant No. 4 is the sister of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3. The plaintiff and the defendants are sons and daughter of one Genba Jadhav. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 91 of 1984, for partition and separate possession. The suit properties inter alia included ancestral agricultural lands. Genba died intestate on 22nd February, 1972. The First Appellate Court has proceeded on the footing that the share of the deceased Genba in joint family properties got separated immediately prior to his death under section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the sons as well as daughters i.e. the plaintiff and all the defendants including daughter Smt. Hansabai Raghunath Jagtap are entitled to share therein as provided by and under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 do not want their sister Smt. Hansabai to get any share in the suit properties. The said defendants have therefore, filed this Second Appeal. According to the appellants the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not at all applicable to agricultural lands and if old Hindu Law is to be applied, the defendant No. 4 in her capacity as daughter of the deceased is not entitled to any share in the agricultural lands. I do not agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants.

3. When this appeal was being heard for admission by this Court, Shri Anil Anturkar, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not applicable to agricultural lands. The learned Counsel submitted that there was a conflict of opinion on the subject amongst various High Courts of the country and the appeal deserved to be admitted. The learned Counsel submitted that if his first proposition as formulated above was acceptable to the Court, it would follow that the Respondent No. 4, sister of the original plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 was not entitled to any share in the ancestral agricultural lands. I found the propositions formulated by Shri Anturkar as somewhat startling. In our High Court, we have always applied Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to all properties of the deceased including agricultural lands except to the extent of specific exclusion made under section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. I thought it fit and proper to examine the question in depth and in detail at the stage of admission of the appeal. By its order dated 1st February 1994, the Court appointed Shri A. S. Kumbhakoni and Shri V. B. Naik as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. The office was directed to furnish xerox copies of the paper book to the learned Advocates who were appointed by the Court as Amicus Curiae. Shri Kumbhakoni and Shri Naik willingly accepted the responsibility to assist the Court. The Court is thankful to both the learned Counsel for their able assistance to the Court as Amicus Curiae. Shri Anil Anturkar also made his submissions in detail. The submissions made by Shri Anturkar were backed by industry and research. So were the submissions of Shri Kumbhakoni and Shri Naik. Since I remained unconvinced with the submissions of Shri Anturkar after going through all the authorities, I thought it unnecessary to issue notice to the Respondents. This appeal has been argued almost like a final hearing at the admission stage in public interest. Merely because the submissions made by Shri Anturkar are somewhat novel, I have not hesitated to examine the said submissions on merits and in proper perspective.

4. The only question which arises for consideration of the Court in this appeal is as to whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document