SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(Pat) 104

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.
Sudarshan Singh
Versus
Suresh Singh
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 114 of 1954 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 02, 1959

In the absence of a rule of Hindu law, the succession to the stridhan property of a maiden will be determined on the principle of equity, justice, and good conscience, and the illegitimate daughter and son will take the property in equal shares.

Headnote:

SUCCESSION - STRIDHAN PROPERTY - ILLEGITIMATE DAUGHTER - RIGHT TO INHERIT - PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND GOOD CONSCIENCE - APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs claimed title to the disputed properties through a registered sale deed executed by Ram Peyari Kuer, the daughter of Dulari Kuer, who was allegedly gifted the properties by Ramdhari Singh. The defendants contested the plaintiffs' title, claiming that Ram Peyari Kuer was not the daughter of Dulari Kuer and that the gift deed was not acted upon.

Finding of the Court:

The lower appellate court found that Ram Peyari Kuer was the daughter of Ramdhari Singh through Dulari Kuer and that there was a valid gift made by Ramdhari Singh to Dulari Kuer and Kishori Singh. However, it held that Ram Peyari Kuer was entitled to only half of the disputed properties, as the other half devolved upon Kishori Singh, the son of Dulari Kuer.

Issues: 1. Whether Ram Peyari Kuer was entitled to succeed in preference to her brother Kishori Singh to the share of Dulari Kuer in the disputed properties. 2. Whether the principle of equity, justice, and good conscience should be applied in the absence of a rule of Hindu law on the point.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the texts of Mitakshara with regard to the devolution of stridhan property of a married woman must be construed as referring to a legitimate son and a legitimate daughter. 2. In the absence of an express rule of Hindu law, the case must be decided on the principle of equity, justice, and good conscience. 3. Applying the principle of equity, justice, and good conscience, the court held that the illegitimate daughter Ram Peyari Kuer and the illegitimate son Kishori Singh would take the stridhan property of Dulari Kuer in equal shares.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and modified the decree of the lower appellate court. It held that the plaintiffs were entitled to one-fourth share of all the properties comprised in the registered deed of gift dated the 16th December, 1935, and that they were entitled to mesne profits with effect from the date of the decree of the trial court, namely, the 7th of April, 1951, till the date of delivery of possession.

Judgment

V.Ramaswami, J.

1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs alleged that the properties mentioned in Schedules A. B. C. of the plaint belonged to one Ramdhari Singh of village Mohammadpur. Ram-dhari Singh had no legally married wife, but he had a concubine Dulari Kuer, through whom he had a son Kishori Singh and a daughter Ram Peyari Kuer. It is alleged that on the 16th of December, 1935, Ramdhari executed a registered deed of gift with respect to all the properties in favour of Dulari Kuer and Kishori Singh and placed them in possession of the properties comprised in the document.

Ramdhari Singh died in September 1942, and Dulari Kuer died in February, 1943. The properties of Dulari Kuer devolved upon her daughter Ram Peyari Kuer, and after Kishori died on the 3rd of December, 1944, his share also devolved upon Ram Peyari Kuer. Ram Peyari Kuer accordingly came in possession of all the properties, and on the 29th December, 1944, she executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and pro-forma defendants 31 to 35.

The case of the contesting defendants was that Ram Peyari Kuer was not the daughter of Dulari Kuer, nor was she born of Ramdhari Singh through Dulari Kuer, that the deed of gift alleged to have been executed by Ramdhari Singh was not acted upon and that Ramdhari Singh continued in possession of the properties and after his death the properties devolved upon Kishori Singh as his heir. It is also said that Kishori Singh was married to Shanti Devi, daughter of Bigan Mistry of Gaya, and that Shanti Devi succeeded to the properties and later on she sold these properties by a registered sale deed to defendants 1st and 2nd parties. The defendants accordingly denied the title of the plaintiffs to any portion of the disputed properties involved in this case.

2. The trial court decreed the suit in its entirety, but on appeal the lower appellate court has held that the plaintiffs are entitled to only a half share of the disputed properties and are entitled to joint possession of the half share along with the defendants first and second parties. The lower appellate court also gave a decree for mesne profits to the plaintiffs with respect to their half share with effect from the 27th April, 1946 up to the date of delivery of possession.

3. The lower appellate court based its decision upon the following findings of fact. It found, firstly, that Ram Feyari was the daughter of Ram-dhari Singh through Dnlari Kuer and there was a valid gift made by Ramdhari Singh to Duhtri Kner and to Kishori Singh on the 16th of December, 1935. with respect to all the properties. The lower appellate court further found that Shanti Devi was married to Kishori Singh and was his lawfully wedded wife. Upon these findings the lower appellate court held that the plaintiffs had title to eight annas interest in the disputed properties which appertained to Dulari Kuer.

4. The main question of law involved in this case is whether Ram Pcyari is entitled to succeed in preference to her brother Kishnri Singh to the share of Dulari Kuer in the disputed properties. The lower appellate court has found that Dulari died on the 29th July, 1941, leaving both Kishori Singh and Ram Feyari, It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the absence of a rule of Hindu law on the point the case should he decided on the principle of "equity, justice and good conscience," and the doctrine ot propinquity or relationship of blood should he applied to the case.

It was contended, therefore, that both Kishori Singh and Ram Peyari must be taken to have succeeded in equal shares to the properties of their mother Dulari. The contrary view point was presented by learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents. It was argued that the property given by Ramdhari Singh by a registered deed of gift to Mussammat Dulari became the Stridhan Property ot Musammat Dulari, and the rule of succession to striclhan, according to the Mitakshara school is that t

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top