IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters do not inherit coparcenary property prior to the 2005 amendment, and the plaintiff's title was upheld against the defendant's claims.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

1. The second appeal has been preferred for setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed in Civil Appeal No.97 of 2018 by which the learned First Appellant Court vide its judgment dated 18.02.2020 and Decree dated 25.02.2020 has reversed the Judgment dated 14.06.2018 and Decree dated 26.06.2018 passed in Title Suit No.76 of 2006.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the land pertaining to Khata No.31 of Mauza Godhar, Plot No.1326, Area 13 decimals was recorded in the name of Bhadu Mahato in C.S. record of right. Bhadu Mahato constructed the house over the said land and started living with his family members till his death and died leaving behind his two sons namely Baneshwar Mahato and Chhatu Mahato who jointly inherited the land and continued to reside over the suit plot and premises. Subsequently Baneshwar Mahato and Chhatu Mahto partitioned their land and house in half share each i.e. 6 ½ decimals of land. It is further alleged that Chattu Mahato died in the year 1945 leaving behind his widow Rashu Mahatain and three sons namely Birbal Mahato, Hiralal Mahato, Maniram Mahato and three daughters namely Manjwa Mahatain, Sanjwa Mahatain and Kunti Mahatain as legal heirs. Subsequently, Rashwa Mahatain died in the year 1949 and all three sons remained in joint possession over the land of Chhatu Mahato. All the three daughters namely Manjwa Mahatain, Sanjwa Mahatain and Kunti Mahatain did not inherit any interest over the land of Chhatu Mahato including the suit property as they were living with their husband in another village. It is alleged that Birbal Mahato and Hiralal Mahato had died issueless and they have no widows, therefore, the interest of the Birbal Mahato and Hiralal Mahato devolved upon the surviving brother namely Maniram Mahato who alone remained in possession over the land and house mentioned in the Schedule (A).

3. The defendants Jagdish Mahato, the son of Kunti Mahatain after death of Kunti Mahatain, was brought up in the house of the plaintiff(Maternal Uncle) and after attaining majority, he was allowed to remain in one of the rooms over the suit premises, and the possession of the defendant was from the very inception permissive in nature and he has never got right, title and interest over the said property described in Schedule “B” to the plaint.

4. In the month of April, 2006, the defendant started claiming his own interest over the room and house described in Schedule “B” and removed the tiles for renovation of the said premises given to him for residential purpose without consent of the plaintiff. This event casts doubt on the title of the plaintiff, hence suit for declaration of right, title and interest as well as recovery of the possession were brought which was registered as Title Suit No.76 of 2006.

5. On the other hand, the case of the defendant is that the property of Bhadu Mahato devolved on Chhatu Mahato and Baneshwar Mahto who were residing as per amicable family arrangement separately in mess and property. Chhatu Mahato was residing in the house constructed in half portion bearing Plot No.1326 Area 6 ½ decimals but he died in the year 1959 not in the year 1945 as alleged by the plaintiff, the wife of Chhatu Mahato also died in 1976-77 not in the year 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff.

6. As such, both Chhatu Mahato and his wife Rasua Mahatain died after passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hence, all the daughters of Chhatu Mahato namely Manjwa Mahatain, Sanjwa Mahatain and Kunti Mahatain inherited property of Chhatu Mahato including the property described in Schedule “A” along with brothers. Since, Birbal Mahato and Hiralal Mahato died issueless, hence their shar in property also devolved upon the surviving heirs and successor family members as well Maniram Mahato and his surviving sisters including the mother of this defendant. It is absolutely false to say that Maniram Mahato alone inherited propert