Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Kamaljit Mishra (dead) – Appellants
Versus
Suchitra Mishra and others - Respondents
R.S.A.No.30 of 2010
Decided On : 07-10-2016
For the Appellants : Ms. Savitri Ratho.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Mr. S.K. Sarangi.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which determines the devolution of a deceased's interest in joint family property to Class-I heirs.
Headnote:
Joint Family Property - Hindu Succession Act - Section 6
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that a compromise decree passed in a partition suit was null and void and not binding on her, and to allot a share in the joint family properties. The trial court decreed the suit in her favor, which was confirmed in the appeal. The defendant appealed on the ground of limitation for filing the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff, as a Class-I heir, was entitled to a share in the joint family property under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. It found no evidence of her relinquishing her share and held that the compromise decree was not binding on her as she was not a party to the earlier suit. The court dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Suit maintainability, binding nature of compromise decree, entitlement to share, knowledge about previous partition suit, relief for the plaintiff
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision rested on the interpretation of the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which determined the devolution of the deceased's interest in the joint family property. It found that the plaintiff, as a Class-I heir, was entitled to a share and that the compromise decree was not binding on her as she was not a party to the earlier suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. RATH, J.
This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2009 and 3.11.2009 respectively of the learned District Judge, Sambalpur in R.F.A.No.6/3 of 2007-08 confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2006 and 21.12.2006 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Sambalpur in T.S.No.41 of 2001.
2. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties.
Hari Prasad Mishra (D.3)(dead) = Suchitra Mishra (Plaintiff)
Surjit (Son) (D.1)
Kamaljit (Son)
(D.2)(dead) = Ashalata
Smt.Leela (D.3 (a))
Sudha (D.3(b))
(5) Smt.Smita (D.3 (c)(dead))
Sukanya
Namrata
Nirlipta
Ramanarayan
3. Case of the plaintiff was that T.S.No.83 of 1990 was instituted by defendants 1 and 2 against defendant no.3 for partition. The same was decreed in terms of a compromise petition dated 16.4.1991. She was not a party to the suit. No share was allotted to her. She came to know about the suit and compromise decree in the month of January, 2001. With the aforesaid factual scenario, the suit was filed for a declaration that the compromise decree passed in T.S.No.83 of 1990 is null and void and not binding on her and to allot a share in the schedule A & B properties.
4. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant no.2 entered appearance and filed written statement contending inter alia that T.S.No.83 of 1990 as well as compromise petition was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. She was instrumental in filing the suit. She voluntarily relinquished her share. The decree passed in the suit is binding on her. Defendants 1 and 3 were set ex parte. Be it noted that during pendency of the suit, defendant no.3 died, whereafter his legal representatives have been substituted. Further during pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant died, whereafter his legal representatives have been substituted.
5. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck five issues. They are :–
“1. Is the suit maintainable ?
2. Whether the compromise decree passed in T.S.No.83 of 1990 was at the instance of the plaintiff and is binding on her ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a share in respect of the suit property ?
4. Whether the plaintiff has knowledge about the previous partition suit (T.S.No.83 of 90) ?
5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?”
6. To prove the case, the plaintiff had examined herself as P.W.1 and on her behalf, certified copy of original decree of T.S.No.83 of 1990 was exhibited as Ext.1. Defendant no.2 had examined two witnesses including himself and on his behalf, one document was exhibited. The learned trial court came to hold that though defendant no.2 took a plea that the plaintiff has relinquished her share, but the same was not supported by any document. The suit was not filed at the instance of the plaintiff. Accordingly, issue nos. 2 and 4 answered in favour of the plaintiff. While answering issue no.3, the learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to a share from the joint family property. It was further held that the suit was maintainable and the judgment and decreed passed in T.S.No.83 of 1990 was not binding on the plaintiff, since she was not a party to the suit. Held so, the learned trial court decreed the suit. It is apt to state here.
7. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, defendant no.2 filed R.F.A.No.6 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur. The same was transferred to the learned Additional District Judge, Sambalpur and re-numbered as R.F.A.No.6/3 of 2007-08, which was eventually dismissed.
8. This Second Appeal was admitted on 21.5.2010 on the following substantial question of law:-
“(a) Whether the question of limitation for filing the suit has been rightly decided by the learned Courts below ?”
9. Heard Ms. S. Ratho, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Mohanty,
