Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1120
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MUKAT LAL – Appellant
Versus
KAILASH CHAND (D) THR. LRS. – Respondent
C.A. No.-006460-006460 - 2024
Possession is a prerequisite for claiming full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; without possession, the adopted son cannot claim partition.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(1) - Right of succession in unpartitioned Joint Hindu Family property - The appeal challenges the dismissal of a partition suit by the High Court, asserting that the plaintiff, as the adopted son of a widow, had no right to claim property not possessed by the widow. The court emphasized that possession is a prerequisite for claiming full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Act. (Paras 5, 10, 24, 26)
(B) Res Judicata - The earlier civil suit filed by the widow for title and possession was dismissed, establishing that she was never in possession of the suit property, which precludes her adopted son from claiming partition. (Paras 12, 26)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenges the legality of the High Court's dismissal of his appeal regarding the partition of property claimed by his adopted mother, who had no prior possession or title. (Paras 2, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim was untenable as neither he nor his adopted mother had ever possessed the suit property, thus dismissing the partition suit. (Paras 28, 30)
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff could claim partition based on the widow's rights under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act without having possession of the property. (Paras 5, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that possession is essential for claiming rights under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, and since the widow was never in possession, her adopted son could not claim partition. (Paras 24, 26)
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 is dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
2. The instant appeal by special leave challenges the final judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1029 of 2006 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant questioning the legality and validity of the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 passed by learned Single Judge of the Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2024.05.16 12:43:12 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1993 was dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Revenue Court.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter in the proper perspective, it would be beneficial to reproduce the genealogical table/pedigree of the families of the parties.
Kishan Lal Mangilal (Died 1912) Kanwarlal (Died 1954) Mukat Lal (Appellant) (on the basis of will dated 09.02.1949) Madho Lal (Died Issueless in 1929) Widow- Nandkanwarbai (Died 1972) Kailash Chand (adopted by Nandkanwarbai on 12.06.1959 after the death of Madho Lal) Chronological List of Events: -
- Dates Event After the death of Kishan Lal, Hindu Undivided Family(HUF) property devolved among his two sons, Mangilal and Madho Lal.
1912 Mangilal passed away. (Survived by his son, Kanwarlal) 1929 Madho Lal passed away (Issueless, survived by his widow- Smt.
Nandkanwarbai) 09.02.1949 Kanwarlal executed a will in favour of his son, Mukat Lal (appellant herein).
1954 Kanwarlal Passed Away.
First Set of Legal Proceedings 1958 Smt. Nandkanwarbai filed Civil Suit No. 11of 1958 for declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit property.
21.05.1959 Civil Suit No. 11 of 1958 was dismissed however the Civil Judge held that Smt. Nandkanwarbai had the right to be maintained out of the suit property.
12.06.1959 Smt. Nandkanwarbai adopted Kailash Chand(original respondent herein).
12.07.1966 Mukat Lal preferred Appeal No. 64 of 1966 against order dated 21.05.1959 passed in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1958. 09.02.1968 Civil Judge allowed Appeal No. 64 of 1966 and set aside the order to the extent that it gave Smt. Nandkanwarbai the right to be maintained out of the suit property.
Aggrieved, Smt. Nandkanwarbai preferred SB Civil Second Appeal No. 347 of 1968 1972 Smt. Nandkanwarbai passed away. Kailash Chand was substituted as legal representative of deceased Smt.
Nandkanwarbai in 1973.
20.03.1973 High Court allowed SB Civil Second Appeal No. 347 of 1968 and held that Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled to the right of maintenance out of the suit property, she being the widow of the deceased coparcener in joint Hindu family property.
Present Proceedings 20.06.1979 Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 under section 53 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 was filed by Kailash Chand, for partition of the suit property, in the capacity of the legal heir of his adopted mother Smt. Nandkanwarbai. 14.12.1983 Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 was allowed and decreed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bundi wherein it was held that Kailash Chand being the sole legal heir of Smt. Nandkanwarbai has coparcenary rights over the lands belonging to Madho Lal.
1984 Mukat Lal preferred Appeal No. 12 of 1984 challenging order dated 14.12.1983 before Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. 31.01.1986 Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota allowed Appeal No. 12 of 1984 and decree passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bundi dated 14.12.1983 was set aside. 1986 Kailash Chand preferred Second Appeal being S.A. 120 of 1986 before Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
12.03.1992 Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed S.A. 120 of 1986 1993 Kailash Chand filed a Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1993 before High Court challenging the order passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 12.03.1992. 21.07.2006 Ld. Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1993 and set aside the judgments passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
2006 Mukat Lal filed a Wr
