1980 Supreme(MP) 408

C. P. Sen, J.
Sukhmanti v. Chbotelal.
S. A. No. n of 1974 (J); Decided on 17-11-1980.

Headnote:(1) Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 -- S. 1 -- right of inheritance to coparcenary properties -- whether saved even if coparcener married with low caste women and out-caste on this ground.

        (2) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- S. 6 -- applicability of -- female heir not falling in class 1 of the schedule -- section has no application.

        Plaintiff, Sukhmanti, was the sister of Bhaiyalal who died in 1967 Sarjooram and Maheshprasad were real brothers. Bhaiyalal and plaintiff Sukhmanti is the son and daughter of Sarjooram. Defendants, 1 and 2 are the sons of Maheshprasad. Plaintiffs case is that Sarjooram and Maheshprasad had separated long back and the suit properties are the self-acquired property of Bhaiyalal and after the death of Bhaiyalal she inherited the same being the sole heir, but she has been dispossessed from the suit property in 1968 by the defendants. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit properties were the joint family property of Maheshprasad and Bhaiyalal and the defendants were also the members of the coparcenary after the death of Maheshprasad the properties were inherited by Bhaiyalal and the defendants by survivorship and on the death of Bhaiyalal by these two defendants, the plaintiff could not inherit the coparcenary property as she is nor legal heir in class one.

        The Courts below found that the suit properties are not the self-acquired properties of Bhaiyalal, nor it has been proved that there was a partition between Sarjooram and Mahesprasad, the suit properties were jointly acquired by Maheshprasad and Bhaiyalal and are joint family properties. After the death of Bhaiyalal the remaining members of the joint family inherited the suit properties by survivorship. These are findings of fact binding on this Court in second appeal.

        Held : Admittedly, Bhaiyalal died in 1967 and he left the plaintiff as his sole heir. She not being a her in class I of the Schedule, the provisions of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act has no application. Therefore, the suit properties were rightly held to have been inherited by the defendants by survivorship.

        It was contended here that Bhaiyalal had married a woman of low caste and he was out-casted with the result that he could no longer remain a member of the coparcenary. There is no plea to this effect. Besides, the disabilities, if any, existing were removed by the Caste Disabilities Removal Act. 1850 and on one can forfeit his right of inheritance because of change of religion or caste. May be Bhaiyalal was Li"Ving separately but he continued to be a member of the coparcenary having interest in the coparcenary properties. Appeal dismissed.