Back
2007(3) JLJ 140
S.S. Jha and Sanjay Yadav, JJ.
Vijay Goyal v. Madanlal Goyal and others
First Appeal No.210 of 2002 (Gwalior) : against the judgment and
decree of V Additional District Judge, Gwalior passed in
Civil Suit No.2-A of 2002; Decided on 14.5.2007.
Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. In the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that suit properties are the properties of Joint Hindu Family. The properties are situated at Gwalior and Surat in the State of Gujarat. Plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.4 lacs. Plaintiff has sought further relief that he should not be dispossessed from the suit properties as he is a coparcener and is entitled for declaration that he has 1I3rd share in the properties of Joint Hindu Family. [Para 2
Shri Aniket Naik submitted that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Diwan Singh v. Bhaiya Lal [1997(2) JLJ 167=1997(2) MPLJ 202], has held that sale of Joint Hindu Family property governed by Mitakshra School of Benaras by one coparcener without the consent of another coparcener is void. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for injunction restraining defendant from alienating the coparcenary property. He submitted that 1/3 share in the property requires adjudication. If plaintiff is not willing for partition, then also he cannot be denied of decree for declaration of his share in the Joint Hindu Family property. [Para 3
Held : Mayadevi had also purchased another house by registered deed of sale on 17.3.1959 and plaintiff has acquired right in the properties after the death of grand mother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff‘s grand mother died in the year 1980. Since, plaintiff‘s grand mother died in the year 1980 after coming into force of Act of 1956, her limited right at the time of death of Ramswaroop Goyal has become absolute under section 14 of the Act of 1956. In the circumstances, plaintiff can clairruhare in the properties which were jointly owned by defendant No.1 and Mayadevi and burden is on the plaintiff to establish that nucleus of fund for business from Gujarat is derived from the joint properties of defendant and Mayadevi and he has a right in the firm. Considering the facts of this case, the cases of Commissioner, Wealth Tax [AIR 1986 SC 1753], and Yadhishter [AIR 1987 SC 558], are not attracted in the facts of this case.
Plaintiff has also claimed protection of his possession by perpetual injunction. In the plaint, plaintiff has disclosed cause of action in his favour and the pleas raised by the plaintiff are to be determined by the trial Court after the written statement is filed and evidence is recorded. If after written statement, Court is of the opinion that suit can be disposed of on preliminary issues, Court can proceed to decide the preliminary issues, if evidence is required to adjudicate the preliminary issue/issues. AIR 1986 SC 1753 and AIR 1987 SC 558 distinguished. [Paras 9 & 10
(2) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S.38 -- suit for injunction against coparcener n not maintainable. 1982 MPWN 27 referred. [Para 2
(3) Hindu Law -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S.54 -- sale of joint Hindu property governed by Mitakshara School of Benaras by one co-parcener without consent of another -- is void. 1997(2) JLJ 167 (FB) referred to. [Para 3
(4) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S.38 -- Hindu Law – suit for injunction against co-parcener not maintainable -- plaintiff has no right in property 142 Vijay Goyal v. Madanlal Goyal [2007(3) during life time of father. AIR 1986 SC 1753 and AIR 1987 SC 558 referred to. [Para 4
(5) Hindu Law -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- S.6 -- birth right of son does not exist after commencement of the Act n provisions under S.6 are limited 2002(3) MPLJ 576, AIR 1986 SC 1753 and AIR 1987 SC 558 referred to. Provides decision of Larger Bench reported in AIR 1984 SC 1234 not considered in above cases. [Para 7
(6) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- Ss.6 and 8 -- S.8 flows from S.6 - manner of calculating share of each member of coparcenary is examined by calculation notional partition n son has right of inheritance as coparcener. AIR 1978 SC 1239 and 2006(3) MPJR SN 19 referred to. [Para 7
(7) Hindu Law -- inheritance -- son has birth right. (1997)2 SCC 485 referred to. [Para 7
(8) Precedents -- Constitution of India -- Art. 141 -- judgment of Larger Bench n is to be followed. AIR 1976 SC 2433 referred to. [Para 7
(9) Hindu Law -- right to alienate coparcenary property by Karta, manager or father -- can be examined by examining school by which the parties are governed. 1997(2) JLJ 167 (FB) referred to. [Para 7
(10) Hindu Law -- ancestral property -- son has a birth right therein. (2003) 1 SCC 212 followed. [Para 9
(11) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.7 R.11 and O.14 R.2(2) -- cause of action disclosed n pleas raised to be determined after written statement is filed and evidence is recorded -- after filing written statement if Court is of view that the case can disposed of on any preliminary issue, can be decided first -- such suit should not be rejected under O.7 R.11. [Para 10
¼1½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 34 rFkk 38 && oknh dk nkok dsoy vius firk ds ek/;e ls gh ugha] vfirq viuh nknh ds ek/;e ls Hkh fganw mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e izo`Rr gksus ds i‘pkr~ gksus ds i‘pkr~ vkR;afrd Lokeh gks xbZ Fkh && vius va‘k vkSj vius dCts ds ckjs es ‘kk‘or O;kns‘k dh ?kks"k.kk dk nkok dj ldrk gSA
oknh ds ?kks"k.kk vkSj ‘kk‘or O;kns‘k ds fy, okn Qkby fd;kA okni= esa oknh us vfHkopu fd;k fd oknh laifÙk;k¡ fganw vfoHkDr dqVaqc dh gSA laifÙk;k¡ Xokfy;j vkSj xqtjkr jkT; esa lwjr esa vofLFkr gSA oknh us okn dh ewY;kadu #-4 yk[k fd;kA oknh us bl vfrfjDr vuqrks"k dh bZIlk dh gS fd mls okn laifÙk;ksa ls csn[ky ugha fd;k tk, D;ksafd og lgnkf;d gS vkSj bl ?kks"k.kk dk gdnkj gS fd vfHkoDr fganw dqVaqc dh laifÙk;ksa esa mldk 1@3 va‘k gSA
¿ iSjk 2À
Jh vafdr ukbd us fuosnu fd;k fd bl U;k;ky; dh iw.kZ U;k;ihB esa nhoku flag fo- HkS;kykyA ¿ ¼1997¼2½ ts ,y ts 167¾1997¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 200À] ds ekeys esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ferk{kjk dh cukjl ‘kk[kk ls ‘kkflr vfoHkDr fganw laifÙk dk vU; lgnkf;d dh lgefr fcuk foØ; ‘kwU; gSA blfy, lgnkf;dh liafÙk ds vU;laØke.k ls oknh dks vo#) djrs gq, O;kns‘k dk oknh gdnkj gSA mUgksusa fuosnu f;dk fd laifÙk esa 1@3 va‘k dk U;k;fu.kZ;u visf{kr gSaA ;fn oknh foHkktu ds fy, jtkean ugha gks] rc Hkh vfoHkDr fganw dqVqac esa mlds va‘k dh ?kks"k.kk dh fMØh ls mls oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 3À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ek;knsoh us Hkh 17-3-1959 dks jftLVªh—r foØ; }kjk ,d vU: edku Ø; fd;k Fkk vkSj oknh dh nknh dh e`R;q ds i‘pkr~ oknh us mu laifÙk;ksa esa vf/kdkj vftZr fd;k gSA oknh dh nknh dh e`R;q 1980 esa gqbZA D;kasfd oknh dh nknh dh e`R;q 1980 esa 1956 ds vf/kfu;e ds izofrZr gksus ds i‘pkr~ gqbZ] jkeLo:i xks;y dh e`R;q ds i‘pkr~ lhfer LokfeRo] 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu vkR;afrd gks x;kA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa oknh mu laifÙk;kasa esa va‘k dk nkok dj ldrk gS tks izfroknh Ø-1 vkSj ek;knsoh ds la;qDr LokfeRo esa FkhaA ;g LFkkfir djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gS fd xqtjkr ds dkjckj dh fuf/k izfroknh vkSj ek;knsoh dh la;qDr laifÙk esa ls O;qRiUu gqbZ Fkh vkSj QeZ esa mldk vf/kdkj gSA bl ekeys ds rF;ksa dks /;ku es j[krs gq, vk;qDr laifÙkdj ¿ , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 1753À rFkk ;qf/kf"Bj ¿ , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 558À] ds ekeyksa ds rF; bl ekeys ds rF;ksa dks ykxw ugha gksrsA
oknh us ‘kk‘or O;kns‘k }kjk vius dCtrs dks lja{k.k dk Hkh nkok fd;k gSA okni= esa oknh us okngsrqd vius i{k esa izdV fd;k gS vkSj oknh }kjk fd, x, vfHkokd~] fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk] fyf[kr mÙkj Qkby fd, tkus vkSj lk{; vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ vo/kkfjr fd, tkuk gksxasA fyf[kr mÙkj ds i‘pkr~ ;fn U;k;ky; dh jk; gS fd okn izkjafHkd fook|dksa ij ls fuiVk;k tk ldrk gS] U;k;ky; izkjafHkd fook|dksa fofuf‘pr djus ds fy, vxzlj gks ldrk gS] ;fn izkjafHkd fook|d@fook|dksa ds U;k;fu.kZ;u ds fy, fdlh lk{; dh vko‘;drk ugha gksA , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 1753 rFkk , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 558 izHksfnrA
¿ iSjk 9 ,oa 10À
¼2½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 38 && lgnkf;d ds fo#) O;kns‘k ds fy, okn && pykus ;ksX; ugha gSA 1982 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 27 fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 2À
¼3½ fganw fof/k && laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e 1882 && /kkjk 54 && cukjl dh ferk{kjk ‘kk[kk }kjk ‘kkflr fganw vfoHkDr laifÙkj dk ,d lgnkf;d }kjk vU; dh lgefr fcuk foØ; && ‘kwU; gSA 1977¼2½ ts ,y ts 167 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 3À
¼4½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 38 fganw fof/k && lgnkf;d ds fo#) O;kns‘k ds fy, okn pykus ;ksX; ugha && firk ds thoudky ds nksjku oknh dk laifÙk esa dksbZ vf/kdkj ughaA , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 1753 rFkk , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 558 fufnZ"VA
¿ iSjk 4À
¼5½ fganw fof/k && fganw mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ds i‘pkr~ iq= ds tUefl) vf/kdkj dk vfLrRo ugha && /kkjk 6 ds v/khu mica/k lhfer gSA 2002¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 576] , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 1753 rFkk , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 558 fufnZ"VA mi;qZDr ekeyksa esa , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1234 esa laizdkf‘kr c`gÙkj U;k;ihB ds fu.kZ; ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼6½ fganw mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 rFkk 8 && /kkjk 8] /kkjk 6 ls izokfgr gksrk gS && lgnkf;dh ds izR;sd lnL; ds va‘k dh x.kuk dh jhfr dh tk¡p dkYifud foHkktu dh x.kuk dj ds dh tkrh gS && iq= dks lgnkf;d dh Hkk¡fr mÙkjkf/kdkj dk vf/kdkj gSA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 1239 rFkk 2006¼3½ ,e ih ts vkj ,l ,u 19 fufnZ"VA
¿ iSjk 7À
¼7½ fganw fof/k && mÙkjkf/kdkj && iq= dk tUefl) vf/kdkj gSA ¼1997½2 ,l lh lh 485 fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼8½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 141 && c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dk fu.kZ; && vuqlkfjr fd;k tkuk gksxkA , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 2433 fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼9½ fganw fof/k && drkZ] izca/kd vFkok firk }kjk lgnkf;dh laifÙk dk vU;laØke.k && ftl ‘kk[kk ls i{kdkj ‘kkflr gSa mldh ij[k dj ds tk¡p dh tk ldrh gSA 1997¼2½ ts ,y ts 167¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼10½ fganw fof/k && iSr`d laifÙk && mlesa iq= dk tUefl) vf/kdkj gSA ¼2003½1 ,l lh lh 212 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼11½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 7 fu-11 rFkk vk-14 fu- 2¼2½ && okngsrqd izdV fd;k x;k && fd, x, vfHkokd~ fyf[kr mÙkj Qkby fd, tkus vkSj lk{; vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ vo/kkfjr fd, tkuk gksxsa && fyf[kr mÙkj Qkby fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ ;fn U;k;ky; dh jk; gS fd ekeyk fdlh izkjafHkd fook|d ij ls fuiVk;k tk ldrk gS] og igys fofuf‘pr fd;k tk ldrk gS && ,slk okn vk- 7 fu-11 ds v/khu [kkfjt ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 10À
Jha, J. -- 1. This appeal is filed against the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII rule 11, CPC by the trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
(i) Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. In the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that suit properties are the properties of Joint Hindu Family. The properties are situated at Gwalior and Surat in the State of Gujarat. Plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.4lacs. Plaintiff has sought further relief that he should not be dispossessed from the suit properties as he is a coparcener and is entitled for declaration that he has 1/3rd share in the properties of Joint Hindu Family.
(ii) Defendant filed an application under Order VII rule 11, CPC that suit is undervalued in order to avoid the payment of advolarem Court fee on the valuation of the suit. Plaintiff is seeking partition in the garb of declaration. Suit for declaration without seeking consequential relief of partition is not maintainable. Suit as filed is not maintainable.
(iii) Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that suit for declaration alone without seeking further relief for partition is not maintainable. Suit for injunction against coparcener is not maintainable as held in I the case of Pyarelal v. Nandlal [1982 MPWN 27].
3. Shri Aniket Naik submitted that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Diwan Singh v. Bhaiya Lal [1997(2) JLJ 167=1997(2) MPLJ 202], has held that sale of Joint Hindu Family property governed by Mitakshra School of Benaras by one coparcener without the consent of another coparcener is void. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for injunction restraining defendant from alienating the coparcenary property. He submitted that 1/3 share in the property requires adjudication. If plaintiff is not willing for partition, then also he cannot be denied of decree for declaration of his share in the Joint Hindu Family property.
4. On the other hand, Shri Vinod Bharadwaj, Advocate argued that suit against the coparcener for injunction is not maintainable. During the life time of the father, plaintiff has no right in the property. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Wealth Tax v. Chandra Sen [AIR 1986 SC 1753], and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar [AIR 1987 SC 558]. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1956") rights of those coparceners were saved which were existing on the date of commencement of the Act. Plaintiff's father has inherited the property in his individual capacity and right of succession will be governed by section 8 of the Act of 1956. Therefore, plaintiff has no cause of action and trial Court rightly rejected the plaint.
5. While considering the argument, following questions are required to be determined:
(i) Whether section 6 of the Act of 1956 is restricted only to the coparceners who were members of Joint Hindu Family on the date of commencement of the Act of 1956?
(ii) Whether plaintiff has right to claim perpetual injunction to protect the coparcenary property?
(iii) Whether son/coparcener can file suit for declaration of his joint possession and extent of his share against the Karta/Manager or another coparcener when alienation by Karta/father is without legal necessity or benefit of estate?
6. Looking to the important questions of law involved, on the request of the Court, Shri R.D. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted the Court as amicus cunae.
7. Shri Jain submitted that birth right of son in coparcenary still exists. Section 6 of the Act of 1956 is not limited and is applicable to coparcenary. He submitted that Single Bench of this Court has taken a view that after the Act came into force, birth right in coparcenary has vanished in the case of Chandrakanta v. Ashok [2002(3) MPLJ 576]. In this case reliance is placed upon the judgment of apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Wealth Tax (supra
SupremeToday
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
