LEGAL ISSUE: Whether daughters are necessary parties in a suit concerning the partition of ancestral property, particularly when a prior partition had occurred among male family members. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Property Law, Inheritance Law. Case Name: Shailndra Kumar Jain and others vs. Maya Prakash Jain and others. [Judgment Date]: April 09, 2019
Date of the Judgment: April 09, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 279
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Indu Malhotra, J.
Can a prior family partition among male members exclude daughters from inheriting ancestral property? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case, clarifying the inheritance rights of daughters under the Hindu Succession Act. This judgment highlights that daughters are indeed necessary parties in any suit concerning the partition of ancestral property, especially when their parents have passed away intestate. The bench comprised of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra, with Justice Lalit authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute within the Jain family. In 1966, a suit was filed by Vinay Prakash Jain (1966 Suit) seeking a declaration that certain properties belonged to him after a partition with his father, mother, and three brothers. This suit was decreed based on a compromise among the male members of the family. Later, in 2006, Maya Prakash Jain, one of the brothers, filed another suit (2006 Suit) claiming exclusive ownership of certain properties based on a subsequent family settlement in 2005. Smt. Srikanta Jain, one of the four sisters, sought to be impleaded in the 2006 suit, claiming her share in the ancestral property after the death of her parents. After her death, her legal heirs, the appellants, continued the litigation.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1966 | Vinay Prakash Jain files Suit No. 92 of 1966 seeking declaration of ownership after partition. |
| 23.02.1966 | Trial court passes a decree in Suit No. 92 of 1966 based on a compromise between the plaintiff, parents and three brothers. |
| 05.11.2005 | Alleged family settlement between the sons of Amba Prasad Jain regarding division of properties. |
| 2006 | Maya Prakash Jain files Suit No. 464 of 2006 claiming exclusive ownership based on the 2005 settlement. |
| Sometime after 2006 | Smt. Srikanta Jain files an application seeking impleadment in Suit No. 464 of 2006. |
| 10.03.2016 | Trial court dismisses Srikanta Jain’s application for impleadment. |
| 19.07.2018 | High Court dismisses the Civil Revision filed by the appellants. |
| 09.04.2019 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and sets aside the order of the High Court and Trial Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court dismissed Srikanta Jain’s application for impleadment, stating that she had knowledge of the 1966 suit and did not challenge the decree. The High Court upheld this decision, observing that the 2006 suit was primarily for implementing the 1966 decree and that the appellants were not necessary parties. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the principles of Hindu Law and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court noted that under the then-prevailing Hindu Law, daughters were not entitled to a share in the joint family property if a partition occurred between the husband, wife, and sons. However, the wife was entitled to a share equal to that of a son during such a partition. The court also observed that after the death of the parents, if they die intestate, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, allows every Class I heir, including daughters, to inherit a share in the property left behind by their parents. The court referred to the principle in Lakshmi Chand Khajuria and Ors vs. Ishroo Devi – (1977) 2 SCC 501, which stated that a wife is entitled to receive a share equal to that of a son during a partition between her husband and sons.
The relevant legal provisions considered were:
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This Act governs the inheritance of property among Hindus. It specifies the Class I heirs who are entitled to inherit the property of a deceased person.
- Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This rule deals with the addition or deletion of parties in a suit.
Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions:
- The appellants argued that Srikanta Jain, being a daughter and a Class I heir, was entitled to a share in the properties of her parents after their death.
- They contended that the 1966 partition among the male members of the family could not disentitle her from claiming a share in her parents’ property.
- They submitted that Srikanta Jain was a necessary and proper party to the 2006 suit, as it involved the partition of properties in which she had a right.
Respondents’ Submissions:
- The respondents argued that the 1966 decree had already determined the shares of the parties, and the 2006 suit was merely for its implementation.
- They contended that Srikanta Jain was not a necessary party as the parties to the suit were only those whose shares were to be separated.
- They also claimed that the parents had left behind wills under which the properties had devolved upon the sons exclusively.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Srikanta Jain is a necessary party in the 2006 suit | Daughters are entitled to a share in their parents’ property after their death as Class I heirs. | Appellants |
| The 1966 partition among male members cannot exclude her rights. | Appellants | |
| The 2006 suit involves properties in which Srikanta Jain has a right. | Appellants | |
| Srikanta Jain is not a necessary party in the 2006 suit | The 1966 decree already determined the shares of the parties. | Respondents |
| The 2006 suit is for implementation of the 1966 decree. | Respondents | |
| Wills were left behind by the parents | Properties devolved upon the sons exclusively as per the wills | Respondents |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the prior partition among male members could not extinguish the rights of daughters as Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether Srikanta Jain, the daughter of Amba Prasad Jain and Smt. Devi Jain, was a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in Suit No. 464 of 2006.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether Srikanta Jain was a necessary party in Suit No. 464 of 2006 | Yes, Srikanta Jain was a necessary and proper party. | The Court held that the 1966 partition did not extinguish her rights as a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Lakshmi Chand Khajuria and Ors vs. Ishroo Devi – (1977) 2 SCC 501 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to highlight that a wife is entitled to receive a share equal to that of a son during a partition between her husband and sons. |
| Mulla on Hindu Law – 22nd Edition Page 496 | – | The Court referred to this text to support the principle that a wife is entitled to a share in the partition. |
The following legal provisions were considered by the Court:
| Legal Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Hindu Succession Act, 1956 | Governs the inheritance of property among Hindus, specifying Class I heirs. |
| Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure | Deals with the addition or deletion of parties in a suit. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Srikanta Jain is a necessary party in the 2006 suit | The Court agreed with the appellants’ submission that Srikanta Jain was a necessary party. |
| The 1966 decree already determined the shares of the parties. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the 1966 decree did not extinguish Srikanta Jain’s rights as a Class I heir. |
| The 2006 suit is for implementation of the 1966 decree. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the 2006 suit also involved the question of inheritance after the death of the parents. |
| Properties devolved upon the sons exclusively as per the wills | The Court noted that the due execution of the wills was yet to be proved. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Lakshmi Chand Khajuria and Ors vs. Ishroo Devi – (1977) 2 SCC 501 to support the principle that a wife is entitled to a share equal to that of a son during a partition between her husband and sons.
- The Court referred to Mulla on Hindu Law to support the principle that a wife is entitled to a share in the partition.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of daughters’ inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court noted that the prior partition among male family members could not extinguish the daughters’ rights as Class I heirs after the death of their parents. The court also highlighted that the daughters were necessary parties in any suit concerning the partition of ancestral property, particularly after the death of their parents.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Daughters’ Inheritance Rights | 40% |
| Class I Heirs | 30% |
| Necessity of Daughters as Parties | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court rejected the argument that the 1966 decree had already determined the shares, stating that the subsequent suit also involved the question of inheritance after the death of the parents. The Court also noted that the due execution of the wills claimed by the respondents was yet to be proved. The Court emphasized the principle that “if the Wills are not proved, the daughters would be entitled to a share in the properties, being Class-I heirs.” The Court further stated, “In such an action or proceeding, the daughters being Class I heirs are necessary and proper parties and are required to be impleaded.” The Court concluded that “the applicant Srikanta Jain was a necessary and proper party. Her application to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit, was erroneously rejected by the courts below.”
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and allowed the application for impleadment of Srikanta Jain in Suit No. 464 of 2006.
Key Takeaways
- Daughters have a right to inherit their parents’ property as Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- A prior partition among male members of a family does not extinguish the inheritance rights of daughters.
- Daughters are necessary parties in any suit concerning the partition of ancestral property, especially after the death of their parents.
- The burden of proof lies on those claiming that a will exists to prove its due execution.
Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders passed by the lower courts, and allowed the application for impleadment of Srikanta Jain in Suit No. 464 of 2006.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that daughters are necessary parties in any suit concerning the partition of ancestral property, especially after the death of their parents. This judgment clarifies that prior partitions among male members do not extinguish the inheritance rights of daughters as Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This decision reinforces the position of daughters as equal heirs and ensures their participation in property disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shailndra Kumar Jain vs. Maya Prakash Jain clarifies the inheritance rights of daughters in ancestral property. It emphasizes that daughters are necessary parties in partition suits, especially after the death of their parents, and that prior partitions among male members do not extinguish their rights. This ruling reinforces the principles of gender equality in property inheritance.
Category
Parent Category: Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Child Category: Inheritance Rights of Daughters
Child Category: Class I Heirs
Child Category: Partition of Ancestral Property
Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure
Child Category: Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Shailndra Kumar Jain vs. Maya Prakash Jain case?
A: The main issue is whether daughters are necessary parties in a suit concerning the partition of ancestral property, particularly when a prior partition had occurred among male family members.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about daughters’ inheritance rights?
A: The Supreme Court clarified that daughters are Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and have a right to inherit their parents’ property. A prior partition among male members does not extinguish this right.
Q: What is the significance of being a “necessary party” in a lawsuit?
A: A necessary party is someone whose presence is essential for the court to make a complete and effective decision. In this case, the daughters were deemed necessary parties because their inheritance rights were directly affected.
Q: What happens if a parent dies without a will (intestate)?
A: If a parent dies intestate, their property is distributed among their Class I heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act, which includes daughters.
Q: What if there is a will?
A: If there is a will, the property is distributed according to the will. However, the due execution of the will must be proved by those claiming under it. In this case, the court noted that the due execution of the wills claimed by the respondents was yet to be proved.