Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights of Grandson over Granddaughter in Ancestral Property Dispute: Radha Bai vs. Ram Narayan (22 November 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2019

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5889 of 2009

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a granddaughter claim a share in ancestral property if her father died before her grandfather, who was the original owner? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Radha Bai vs. Ram Narayan & Ors., clarifying the application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in such scenarios. This case highlights the complexities of property inheritance within Hindu joint families and the importance of understanding the rules of succession and survivorship. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute in Village Barra, Tehsil Shakti. The property originally belonged to Sukhdeo Chhannahu, who had two sons, Janakram and Pilaram. Sukhdeo’s grandsons included Saheblal (son of Janakram), who predeceased his father and grandfather, and Sonu (another son of Janakram). Saheblal had a daughter, Radhabai (the appellant), and Sonu had three sons: Ram Narayan, Jaya Narayan, and Rohit Kumar (the respondents).

After Sukhdeo’s death in 1965, Janakram and Pilaram partitioned the property in 1967, with the suit property falling into Janakram’s share. In 1979, Janakram sold the suit property to Sonu’s sons (the respondents). Radhabai, the appellant, claimed a share in the property through her father, Saheblal, asserting that the property was ancestral and she had a right to it.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed Radhabai’s suit, holding that she did not have a right to the property. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling in favor of Radhabai and granting her a share in the property. The respondents then appealed to the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision and upheld the Trial Court’s dismissal of Radhabai’s suit. The High Court held that after the partition between Janakram and Pilaram, Janakram became the absolute owner of the suit property and Radhabai had only a *spes successionis* (a mere chance of succession) during Janakram’s lifetime.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which deals with the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. The relevant portion of the section, as it stood at the time, is as follows:

“6. When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act:
Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship.
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
Explanation 2.— Nothing contained in the proviso to the Section shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein.”

The Supreme Court also considered the implications of Sections 4 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which pertain to the overriding effect of the Act and general rules of succession, respectively.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Radhabai’s) Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of Sukhdeo.
• Since Saheblal (appellant’s father) died after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 of the Act, along with Explanation I, was applicable.
• A notional partition of the coparcenary property should be deemed to have taken place before Saheblal’s death.
• The proviso to Section 6 was attracted as Saheblal left behind his wife and daughter.
• Saheblal’s interest in the coparcenary property should devolve by succession and not by survivorship.
• The appellant, being the sole surviving heir of Saheblal, claimed a right to his entire share.
• The sale deed executed by Janakram in favor of the respondents was illegal and not binding on the appellant.
• The partition between Janakram and Pilaram in 1967, excluding Saheblal’s branch, was invalid.

Respondents’ (Ram Narayan & Ors.) Arguments:

• Saheblal died in 1957, and the ancestral property was succeeded by Sukhdeo’s two sons, Janakram and Pilaram, after Sukhdeo’s death in 1965.
• The appellant was not a Class-I heir at the relevant time.
• Saheblal could not have succeeded to the property during Janakram’s lifetime.
• After the partition between Janakram and Pilaram, the suit property became Janakram’s exclusive property.
• Janakram had the right to alienate the property, which he did by selling it to his grandsons.
• A granddaughter cannot be treated as an heir to have a share in the suit property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the following questions:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the rule of survivorship would not apply, and the plaintiff had a mere *spes successionis*.
2. Whether the sale deed executed by Janakram was illegal and not binding on the appellant.
3. Whether the partition between Janakram and Pilaram in 1967, excluding the branch of the predeceased Saheblal, was valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling against Radhabai. The court reasoned that since Saheblal, Radhabai’s father, predeceased his father (Janakram) and grandfather (Sukhdeo), he did not have any right to the ancestral property. Consequently, Radhabai, claiming through her father, also did not have any right to the property. The court emphasized that after the partition between Janakram and Pilaram, Janakram became the absolute owner of the suit property and had the right to sell it.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Precedence of Survivorship and Succession: The court emphasized that under Hindu law, a person can only inherit property if they have a right to it at the time of the owner’s death. Since Saheblal predeceased his father and grandfather, he had no right to the property, and therefore, his daughter could not claim any right.
• Individual Ownership After Partition: The Court highlighted that after the partition of the property between Janakram and Pilaram, Janakram became the absolute owner of his share. This allowed him to sell the property as he wished.
• Exclusion of Grandchildren as Class-I Heirs: The court reiterated that grandchildren are not included as Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This meant that Radhabai could not claim a share in the property as a direct heir.
• Distinction from Other Cases: The court distinguished the present case from other cases where Class-I heirs were involved. The court clarified that those cases were not applicable to the present scenario where the claimant was a granddaughter whose father had predeceased the property owner.

Key Takeaways

• A granddaughter cannot claim a share in ancestral property if her father predeceased his father and grandfather, who was the original owner of the property.
• After a valid partition of coparcenary property, each coparcener becomes the absolute owner of their share and can dispose of it as they wish.
• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifies the Class-I heirs, and grandchildren are not included in this category.
• The principle of survivorship does not apply when the deceased has left behind Class-I heirs, but this principle is applied to the facts of this case.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case. The court simply dismissed the appeal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a granddaughter cannot claim a share in ancestral property if her father predeceased his father and grandfather, who was the original owner. This judgment reinforces the principle that succession rights are determined based on the status of the claimant’s immediate ancestor at the time of the property owner’s death. The court upheld the principle that after a valid partition of coparcenary property, each coparcener becomes the absolute owner of their share, which is in line with previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Radha Bai vs. Ram Narayan & Ors. clarifies the application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in cases involving the devolution of ancestral property. The court upheld the principle that a granddaughter cannot claim a share in ancestral property if her father predeceased his father and grandfather. This judgment reinforces the importance of understanding the rules of succession and survivorship under Hindu law and provides clarity on the rights of various family members in ancestral property disputes.