A relinquishment deed executed by one member of a joint Hindu family does not confer exclusive rights if other heirs are disregarded; all members retain their claims to ancestral property.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 6 and 30 - Ancestral property - Validity of relinquishment deed - Court addressed issues regarding execution by Susheela on behalf of her daughters and the daughters' entitlement under ancestral joint family property. The deed executed prior to amendments denying daughters' coparcenary rights was upheld as their shares were considered. (Paras 18, 19, 36, 38, 51)

(B) Joint Hindu Family - Rights of heirs - The court confirmed that a relinquishment deed does not grant exclusive rights to the relinquishing party concerning joint family property. (Paras 30, 32, 34)

Facts of the case:
Dispute arose regarding succession to ancestral properties following the death of Annasab and the legitimacy of a relinquishment deed executed by his widow in favor of one son while excluding his daughters, a matter contested by legal heirs. (Paras 1-9)

Findings of Court:
The trial court upheld the relinquishment deed as valid, but calculations regarding the entitled shares were found incorrect and required modification. (Pars 46-52)

Issues: Whether the relinquishment deed was valid in the context of ancestral joint family property and the rightful inheritance of the daughters. (Para 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the relinquishment deed is valid but does not create exclusive rights in favor of the relinquishing heir; daughters, as legal heirs, retain a claim on joint family property. (Paras 30, 34)

Result: Appeals and cross-objections partly allowed; judgment and decree modified. (Para 52)

CAV JUDGMENT

1. These appeals and cross-objection arise out of common Judgment and decree dated 26.03.2005, passed in O.S.No.5/1994 and O.S.No.200/1994 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Raibag (for short `the trial Court'), by which the trial Court while partly decreeing the suit in O.S.No.5/1994 dismissed the suit in O.S.No.200/1994, which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 31.05.2013, passed in R.A.Nos.216/2008 and 220/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Raibag (for short “the First Appellate Court”).

2. Suit properties as described in O.S.No.5/1994 are:

A) The landed properties which are agricultural lands situated at Raibag village in Raibag taluka for the suit property in this suit

Sl. No.	R.S.No.	Area	Assessment	Location
1	772/1B	5A-00Gs.	Rs.6-32ps	Raibag
2	456/16	00A-26Gs. Rs.3-36ps		Raibag Out of this ½ is the suit property
3	457/10	0A-10Gs.	Rs.0-80ps	Raibag Out of this ½ portion
4	456/11	0A-03Gs.	0-20ps	Raibag out of this 1/4th portion is the suit property

The total value of the above said lands will be Rs.27,500/-

B) The house property bearing T.M.C.No.662 situated at Raibag. The market value of the suit house property is Rs.12,000/-.

3. Suit in O.S. No.5/1994 is filed contending inter alia that one Annasab was the original propositus being in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. That the said Annasab was married to one Anasuya and had two sons namely Anand also known as Anandappa and Vasant Annasab Chavan (the plaintiff). Anandappa the elder son passed away leaving behind his wife Smt.Susheela Anandappa Chavan (defendant No.1) and his three daughters as his legal heirs. That defendant Nos.2 and 3 are no way concerned with the family of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and they are not the daughters of Annasab as claimed by them. That the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the only legal heirs of deceased Annasab. That after the demise of her husband, defendant No.1 is residing at Chincholi Station. That she had executed a relinquishment deed dated 20.08.1991 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- relinquishing the share of Anandappa. That upon the demise of Annasab, defendant Nos.2 and 3 claiming themselves to be his daughters have submitted varadhi and obtained mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the suit properties. That during last week of December 1993, the Assistant Commissioner had disposed off the RTS proceedings which were initiated by the plaintiff challenging the aforesaid mutation entry. Taking advantage of the same, defendant Nos.2 and 3 apart from denying the right of the plaintiff are also obstructing his possession over the suit properties. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant No.1 filed her written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are also the heirs of Annasab being his daughters. Execution of relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff and receipt of any amount from the plaintiff is denied. It is contended that her daughters have not been made necessary party to the suit. That the suit properties being ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and her sisters-in-law, defendant Nos.2 and 3, upon the demise of Annasab, have become entitled for legitimate share therein. That after the death of propositus Annasab, the names of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are shown as his heirs in the revenue records, which was challenged by the plaintiff before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi, and the same has been dismissed. That the order of dismissal has not been challenged by the plaintiff. That since defendant No.1 was in need of money she had entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.4 who obtained decree from the competent Court for getting the deed of sale in his favour. The said decree has not been challenged by the plaintiff. That defendant No.1 has been in possession of her legitimate share in the suit properties. That defendant No.1 and her daughters

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20621

A relinquishment deed executed by one member of a joint Hindu family does not confer exclusive rights if other heirs are disregarded; all members retain their claims to ancestral property.

Cases Referred (1)

Login now and unlock premium legal research