Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, along with a declaration that the impugned sale deeds were null and void and not binding on her share, and for permanent injunction and mesne profits. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit by granting relief only in respect of ‘B’ schedule property and dismissed the claim over ‘A’ and ‘A(i)–A(iii)’ properties on the ground that the plaintiff had relinquished her rights and that the sale deeds were binding. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The High Court held that the plaintiff, being a daughter, is a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and is entitled to a share. It further held that the alleged relinquishment deeds were unregistered and therefore did not extinguish her rights. The Court clarified that mutation entries do not confer title and that the sale executed by defendant No.2, who was not the Karta, was binding only to the extent of her share. However, the sale executed by the father in respect of ‘A(i)’ property was upheld as valid for legal necessity. The earlier transactions of 1981 and 1994 were held to be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, and the plaintiff was held entitled to 1/4th share in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, excluding the already alienated properties.
Headnote
A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Amendment 2005) – Coparcenary rights – Daughter – Partition – Entitlement B. Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 & 49 – Relinquishment deed – Non-registration – Effect; Mutation entries – Evidentiary value; Alienation – Binding nature
Plaintiff, being daughter of deceased coparcener, held entitled to coparcenary rights by birth as father died after 09.09.2005 – Claim for partition maintainable – Trial Court erred in denying share in ancestral property on ground of alleged relinquishment.
Alleged relinquishment of rights through unregistered document held invalid as registration is compulsory – Mere payment of stamp duty does not cure defect – Mutation entries do not confer title – Sale by daughter-in-law (non-Karta) not binding on coparceners except to extent of her share, whereas sale by father (Karta) for legal necessity held binding – Prior alienations not challenged within limitation upheld – Appeal partly allowed granting plaintiff 1/4th share.
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the appellant, born after 17.06.1956, was entitled to a share in ancestral properties as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and whether sale deeds executed before 2005 were binding on her share
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff, as a daughter, is a coparcener and entitled to a share. It ruled that the unregistered relinquishment deeds were invalid and did not extinguish her rights, and that the sale by defendant No.2 binds only her share. However, the sale by the father and earlier transactions were upheld. Accordingly, the plaintiff was granted 1/4th share in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, excluding the alienated properties.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act
- 2005 regarding coparcenary rights of daughters born after 1956 but before 2005
- Principles of partition and separate possession in joint Hindu family properties
- Requirements for setting aside sale deeds on grounds of lack of legal necessity
- Application of Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC) in appeals against decrees
