Justice Maulik J. Shelat, Gujarat High Court
Class-I Legal Heirs Of Hindu Dying Intestate Become Absolute Owner Of Property Left By Him After His/ Her Predecessor: Gujarat High Court
|The Gujarat High Court was considering an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC challenging the judgment of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat.
While considering a property dispute matter, the Gujarat High Court has observed that as per Section 8 read with Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on the demise of a Hindu dying intestate, his class-I legal heirs would inherit such property by way of inheritance.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC. challenging the judgment of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat.
The Single Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat said, “Prima-facie, plain reading of Section 8 read with Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would indicate that on demise of Hindu dying intestate then his class-I legal heirs would inherit such property by way of inheritance. As per settled legal position of law in such a situation, class-I legal heirs of Hindu dying intestate become absolute owner of property left by him after his/her predecessor.”
Advocate Amrita A Patel represented the Appellant while Advocate D K Puj represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellants are original defendants, who filed the suit against the respondents seeking a declaration, an injunction and partition of the suit property, wherein an injunction application came to be filed, which was rejected by the trial Court. It was the appellants’ case that they are the daughter and wife of respondent 15, respectively, whereas respondent 11 happens to be their grandmother and mother-in-law, respectively. It was their case that the suit property was ancestral, wherein the right title and interest were of the appellants/ plaintiffs.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Appeal from the Order was filed under Order 43 rule 1(r) of CPC on principle and not on fact, and the High Court could not interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court while exercising its power under Order 39 of CPC, unless it could be shown by the appellants that the order impugned in the appeal was erroneous, perverse, arbitrary and or contrary to the settled principle of law.
The Bench took note of the fact that the suit was filed for partition of the Hindu undivided family property at the instance of the daughter of defendant 15 and granddaughter of defendant 11, respectively. Defendant 15, the father of plaintiff 1, had not sought any partition and also had no objection as regards the execution of the sale deed by his mother, i.e. defendant 11.
“When predecessor of plaintiff no.1 i.e. her father and grandmother and so also mother of her grandmother are alive, no right accrued in favour of plaintiff no.1 to claim such partition. The plaintiff no.2 happens to be wife of defendant no.15 and daughter-in-law of defendant no.11 would not have such right in property”, the Bench said while referring to the judgment in Aher Hamir Duda vs. Aher Duda Arjan (1977).
The Bench was of the view that defendant 11, who happens to be the grandmother and mother-in-law of the plaintiffs, would be entitled to execute a sale deed regarding the suit property inherited by her father dying intestate. It was further observed that when defendant 15, father and husband of plaintiffs 1 & 2, is still alive, then plaintiffs cannot seek any injunction against defendant 11 and other defendants who are legal heirs of the other branch of the father of defendant 11.
Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: Bhavini D/o Jitendrabhai Tribhovandassurati (Parmar) & Anr. v. Jayveer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Case No.: R/Appeal From Order No. 143 of 2024)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Amrita A Patel
Respondent: Advocate D K Puj