Back
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Manoj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Sharma – Respondent
Revision petition filed against trial court's order dated 30.07.2016 dismissing petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No. 72/2016. (!)
Respondent No. 1 filed suit seeking declaration that relinquishment deed dated 12.09.2013 is null and void, along with partition, boundaries, and permanent injunction over property purchased by his grandfather, late Sh. Ramnath Sharma. (!)
Petitioners argued that Respondent No. 1 has no locus standi to claim rights in grandfather's intestate property since his father (Respondent No. 2) is alive; Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 bars other heirs if first-degree heirs exist, and Schedule I excludes grandchildren (child of living child). (!) (!)
Trial court erroneously dismissed the Order 7 Rule 11 application, holding that the matter required evidence. (!)
Respondents countered that Respondent No. 1 had birth rights in grandfather's property, and his father lacked authority to execute relinquishment deed in favor of his sister, allowing challenge to the deed. (!)
Disputed property admitted to be in name of Ramnath Sharma (grandfather), and father of Respondent No. 1 admitted to be alive. (!)
Under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property devolves on Class I heirs; living son (first entry) excludes grandson (son of living son), as Schedule does not include son of living son but only son of predeceased son. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 codifies and amends intestate succession law; express provisions prevail over prior law, preventing grandson from inheriting during father's lifetime. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Respondent No. 1 lacked right to sue over suit property during his father's lifetime. (!)
Trial court erred in dismissing Order 7 Rule 11 application; revision petition allowed, trial court order set aside, and Respondent No. 1's suit dismissed as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (!) (!)
Pending applications disposed of. (!)
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by Civil Judge, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 72/2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration of relinquishment deed dated 12.09.2013 as null and void, partition and bounds and permanent injunction regarding property mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint which was purchased by his grandfather late Sh. Ramnath Sharma. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioners had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC before the trial court. Trial court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 30.07.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent No. 1 had no right to bring a suit claiming his right in his grandfather's intestate property, whereas his father respondent No. 2 is alive because section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 bars right of other heirs if heirs of first degree are present and schedule 1 of the
Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, a grandson cannot inherit if his father is alive, reaffirming the exclusion of certain heirs in intestate succession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to determine the status of the suit property and the relevance of the plaintiff's non-involvement in the sale deed dtd....
The court affirmed daughters' coparcener rights under the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that prior sales cannot negate their claims to jointly inherited property.
The court affirmed that a second suit for partition is maintainable despite prior dismissal, recognizing differing rights under the Hindu Succession Act.
The court ruled that a plaint cannot be dismissed for lack of a cause of action if it provides sufficient information for adjudication, leaving the question of limitation to be determined during tria....
The judgment reinforces daughters' coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act, stating that alienation by male relatives does not bar the daughters' claims for partition of property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
