Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 924
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Ramrao Nilkanthrao Patil (Died through L.Rs.) & Others
Versus
Dhondaji @ Ramesh & Others
Second Appeal No. 323 of 1991
Decided on : 16-04-2014
For the Appellants:Milind Patil, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, G.R. Syed h/f. G.P. Shinde, R4, H.F. Pawar, A.R. Nikam, Surekha Mahajan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the implications of family arrangements and partitions under Hindu Law in determining the ownership of ancestral property.
Headnote:
Hindu Succession Act - Property Dispute - Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The court discussed the application of section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner. The court also considered the legal principles of Hindu Law regarding power to alienate coparcenery property, the power of the Manager to alienate the property for legal necessity, and the power of the father to effect partition. The court emphasized the conditions that need to be satisfied for the provision of section 14 (1) to be applicable and the implications of family arrangements and partitions under Hindu Law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for relief of partition and possession of ancestral agricultural lands. The dispute revolved around the ownership of certain lands claimed by the plaintiff and those claimed by defendant No. 5, the first wife of the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff alleged that the lands belonged to the joint Hindu family and were not the absolute property of defendant No. 5.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lands in dispute were given to defendant No. 5 by the plaintiff's father in 1960, and she had been enjoying these properties as the absolute owner since then. The court held that the properties were given to defendant No. 5 either in lieu of maintenance or under a family arrangement. The court also held that the suit filed by the plaintiff in 1979 was barred by limitation as it was not filed within 12 years of defendant No. 5's possession of the property.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the disputed lands, the application of section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the validity of the partition made by the plaintiff's father, and the limitation period for challenging the possession of defendant No. 5.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lands were given to defendant No. 5 in 1960, and she had been in possession since then, making the suit filed in 1979 barred by limitation. The court also emphasized the conditions that need to be satisfied for the provision of section 14 (1) to be applicable and the implications of family arrangements and partitions under Hindu Law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that there was no need to consider the provision of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in favor of defendant No. 5. All other points formulated as substantial questions of law were answered against the appellants.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
hindu succession
- wife's absolute ownership under section 14
- father's power to partition joint family property
-
maintenance
- property given in lieu of maintenance
-
hindu succession
-
property law
-
coparcenary
- alienation for legal necessity
- son's right to challenge alienation
-
coparcenary
-
limitation
-
time bar for challenging property disposal
- 12-year limitation period
- 3-year concession for minors
-
time bar for challenging property disposal
-
revenue law
-
revenue records
- relevance of mutations
-
revenue records
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 239/1982 which was pending in the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Nanded. The judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 150/1979 filed by the present appellant for relief of partition and possession was partly decreed by the Trial Court, the Court from Degloor, and this decision is confirmed by the District Court in First Appeal. Both the sides are heard.
2. The suit was filed in respect of agricultural lands situated at village Aloor, Tahsil Degloor, District Nanded. The plaintiff/appellant had claimed 7/18th share in all the agricultural lands. The relief is given to the plaintiff in respect of few suit properties, but the Courts below have held that lands Gat Nos. 630, 643 and 96 belonge to defendant No. 5 and she is the absolute owner of these three lands. The Courts below have given 1/3rd share to the plaintiff in remaining lands. The decision only in respect of aforesaid three lands is challenged by the plaintiff.
3. The suit was filed by appellant through his maternal uncle and the maternal uncle represented as next friend. Defendant No. 6 - Saraswatibai is the mother of plaintiff. Defendant No. 5 -Anusayabai is the step-mother of plaintiff. Nilkanthrao, father of plaintiff, had married two wives. Anusayabai is first wife and as Nilkanthrao had no son from Anusayabai, he married with defendant No. 6. Defendant No. 4 is daughter of defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 1 is a son of defendant No. 6 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of defendant No. 6.
4. It is the case of plaintiff that all the suit properties were ancestral properties of his father, Nilkanthrao. It is contended that in revenue record of few lands the names of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were entered at the instance of Nilkanthrao, but they never became absolute owners of those properties as the properties belonged to joint Hindu family. It is contended that during his lifetime, Nilkanthrao was cultivating all his properties including the properties which were shown to be owned by defendant Nos. 5 and 6.
5. It is the case of plaintiff that his relations with defendants are not cordial and he is living with is maternal uncle. It is his case that the defendants are refusing to give his share and so, he is required to file suit.
6. The suit proceeded exparte against defendant Nos. 3 and 6, sister and mother of plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed consent written statement. Only defendant Nos. 4 and 5 contested the suit.
7. It is the case of defendant No. 5 that after the second marriage, the dispute started between the two wives of Nilkanthrao. It is contended that due to the dispute, Nilkanthrao gave land survey No. 29/1, 29/2, 30 and Malal land No. 6A and 11 to defendant No. 5 in lieu of the maintenance. It is her case that possession of these properties was given to her by Nilkanthrao and her name was entered in title column in revenue record.
8. It is the case of defendant No. 5 that property admeasuring more than 29.68 Hectors was with Nilkanthrao and he gave only 6 Hectors 90 R. portion to defendant No. 5. It is contended that in the year 1960 this property was given to her and since then she has been cultivating the property separately. It is her case that in view of provisions of section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she has become absolute owner of these lands. These lands are now given numbers as Gat Nos. 630, 96 and 643.
9. It is the case of defendant No. 5 that properties were given to defendant No. 6 also in lieu of maintenance and the name of defendant No. 6 was also entered in the revenue record of those lands. It is contended that plaintiff, defendant No. 6 and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have joined hands to deprive defendant No. 5 of her property. It is contended that defendant No. 1 had taken some steps and he had got entered his name in the revenue record in respect of lands given to defendant No. 5. It is contended that the said entry wa
