The article is written by Jyotika Saroha. The present article provides a detailed overview of the judgement of Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2016. It elucidates the factual background, issues, contentions by the parties, judgement and analysis of the case. It basically focuses on the concept of the Mitakshara coparcenary system in Hindu joint families.
Table of Contents
Introduction
A Hindu joint family or an undivided family wherein the affairs of the family or the business of the family is owned and controlled by the members of said family in a joint manner. ‘Karta’ is referred to as the representative of the Hindu joint family. The said arrangement of the Joint Hindu Family is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This legislation particularly discusses the transfer and ownership of the property inherited by individuals in the Hindu joint family. Coparcenary property implies the property that has been divided amongst the coparceners after the ancestral property has been divided. The present case of Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors. (2016) has gone through a long discussion in respect of the Mitakshara law, wherein a Hindu acquires the right to property by birth, especially focusing on testamentary and intestate succession. The present case describes the rights of a grandson in the property of his grandfather after his death. The case was primarily filed in the lower court, then went to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and finally came before the Supreme Court in the form of a civil appeal.
Details of the case
Name of the case: Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2360 of 2016
Equivalent Citation: AIR 2016 SC 1169
Laws Discussed: Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Kurian Joseph
Author of the judgement: Justice R.F. Nariman
Parties to the case
Appellant/Plaintiff: Uttam
Respondents: Saubhag Singh & Ors.
Judgement date: 2 March, 2016
Factual background of the case
In the present case, a suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff, namely Suit No. 5A of 1999, in the court of the Second Civil Judge, Class II Devas, Madhya Pradesh, on December 28, 1988, against the four defendants. In the present case, defendant No. 3 is the plaintiff’s father, whereas defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are his uncles, his father’s brothers. Jagannath Singh, the grandfather of the plaintiff, died in 1973 while leaving behind his wife, Mainabai and their four children, including the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the suit for partition claimed that 1/8th of the share in the suit property should be given to him. He claimed that the suit property is an ancestral property, and being a coparcener, by virtue of his birth, he had a right to the said property in accordance with the Mitakshara law. On the other side, the four defendants jointly filed a statement and claimed that the suit property is not ancestral and that there has been a partition in which the plaintiff’s father got separated.
Proceedings of the case
Suit for partition was filed before the trial court by the plaintiff.
The suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff in the court of the Second Civil Judge, Class II Devas, Madhya Pradesh. The Second Civil Judge, in its order dated December 20, 2000, held that the property was ancestral property as defendant no. 1, namely, Mangilal, the uncle of the plaintiff, himself admitted this fact. Further, there was no evidence found with regard to the said partition as claimed by the four defendants.
First appeal filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by the defendants
The first appeal was filed by the four defendants against the order of the trial court. The first appellate court pronounced its judgement on January 12, 2005. It was held that the observation given by the trial court with regard to the ancestral property was correct. On similar grounds, it was stated that the suit property was ancestral, and there is no evidence found with respect to the partition that took place between the four defendants. However, if the right of partition is to be looked into, the court observed that after the death of Jagannath Singh and his widow, namely, Mainabai, the share of the property had to be distributed as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court stated that if Jagannath Singh, the grandfather of the appellant, had died intestate, in that situation, the property had to be divided in accordance with intestate succession rather than survivorship succession. In the present scenario, the plaintiff’s father is alive, and being a Class I heir, the plaintiff is disentitled to sue for the right of partition. Therefore, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and allowed the first appeal.
Second appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Being aggrieved with the decision given in the first appeal, the plaintiff filed a second appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In the second appeal, the decision was pronounced against the plaintiff, and it was stated that the first appellate court rightly dismissed the suit for partition filed by the appellant/plaintiff. In the second appeal, the High Court, by referring to Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, held that the grandson has no right by birth when his father is alive and during the lifetime of his father, he cannot claim partition in the property. The appellant in the present case, whose grandfather, Jagannath Singh, died in 1973, is disentitled to claim partition of the property during the period when his father, Mohan Singh, was alive and is a Class-I heir.
Civil appeal before the Supreme Court
Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court and High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing a civil appeal for the purpose of claiming partition in the property of the suit.
Issues raised before the Supreme Court
Following issues were raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
- Whether the suit property continued to keep its character as a joint Hindu property?
- Whether the appellant has right upon the suit property as a coparcener?
- Whether the appellant has the right to file a suit for partition when his father, Mohan Singh, who is a Class-I heir, is alive?
Arguments of the parties
The arguments on behalf of the appellant were presented by the learned senior advocate Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, whereas the arguments on behalf of the respondents were presented by learned counsel Shri Niraj Sharma. The following contentions were made on behalf of the appellant and respondents:
Appellant/Plaintiff
- The first contention on behalf of the appellant was that the present situation is to be governed as per the proviso of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as Mainabai, the widow of Jagannath Singh, was alive in 1973 at the time of her husband’s death. Jagannath Singh, who died intestate, would have his interest in the property devolved or transferred to the Class I heirs through intestate succession and not by way of survivorship succession, as per Section 8 of the said Act.
- The second contention made by the appellant’s advocate was that it is the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property that would be transferred by intestacy, and it would not otherwise affect the joint family property.
- The third contention was made with regard to the appellant’s ‘right to sue for partition’. It was stated that the right for partition in the joint family property shall continue to prevail even after the death of his grandfather, and being a coparcener, he has the right to sue for partition, and it cannot be taken away.
- It was further argued by the appellant that the suit shall not be barred as Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would only be applicable at the time of the death of Jagannath Singh, the appellant’s grandfather and not after his death.
- The appellant is entitled to partition as a living coparcener of the joint family property before any other death occurred in the joint family property.
- Lastly, it was stated that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, only overrides Hindu law and Sections 6 and 8 of the said Act have to be read in a harmonious way. The status given to joint family property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, can’t be taken away due to the mere applicability of Section 8 upon the death of Jagganath Singh, the grandfather of the appellant.
Respondent
- The respondents claimed that once Section 8 is applied by reason of the Proviso to Section 6 being applied, the joint family property ceases to be a joint family property.
- It was argued that now, for the property to succeed, an application shall be made either under Section 30 or Section 8. Section 30 shall apply wherein a will has been made, and Section 8 shall apply wherein a member of joint family property dies without making a will, i.e., intestate.
- In order to support the above contentions, the learned counsel for respondents relied upon the cases of Commissioner Wealth Tax, Kanpur & Others vs. Chander Sen and others (1986), and Bhanwar Singh vs. Puran (2008), wherein it was held that the joint family property ceased to be joint family property once Section 8 is applied to the facts of the case. It was further stated that when joint family property no longer exists, there shall be no right of partition in a property as a coparcener.
Laws/ concepts involved in Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors. (2016)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act
This section deals with the overriding effect of the Act, wherein the following things that were present prior to the commencement of the Act shall discontinue to have effect on any matter for which provision is made in this Act:
- Any text,
- Rule of Interpretation of Hindu Law, and
- Any custom or usage.
It further provided that any other law that was in force prior to the commencement of the Act shall not be applicable to Hindus if it is not in consonance with the provisions of this Act.
Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act
This section deals with the devolution or transfer of interest in the coparcenary property.
Section 6(1) of Hindu Succession Act
Section 6(1) provides for the provision with regard to a daughter of a coparcener who is a member of a joint Hindu family and is dealt under the Mitakshara law from the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- She shall become a coparcener by birth, similar to that of a son.
- She shall have similar rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as that of a son.
And, where any reference has been made with regard to the Hindu Mitakshara coparcener, it shall be deemed to include a reference to the daughter of a coparcener.
The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 provides that this provision shall not affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation, which includes partition or testamentary disposition, that happened before December 20, 2004. Prior to the amendment of 2005, coparcenary property used to be devolved by methods of survivorship rather than by succession. Earlier, the daughters were not included in the coparcenary property, but after the amendment made in 2005, daughters are also considered to be coparceners by birth and have the same rights and liabilities in the property as a son.
Section 6(3) of Hindu Succession Act
Section 6(3) deals with the provision with respect to the interest of a Hindu in a joint family property dealt with by the Mitakshara law. If the person dies prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, then his interest in the coparcenary property shall be devolved by the testamentary or intestate succession rather than by survivorship. The coparcenary property shall be divided in a manner as if partition had taken place earlier.
Also, the daughter shall be allotted a similar share as allotted to a son. The share of a predeceased daughter or son shall be allotted to the surviving child of the pre-deceased daughter or son as if they had been alive at the time of partition. In the case of the share of a predeceased child of the pre-deceased daughter or son, such shall be allotted to the child of such predeceased child of a predeceased daughter or son.
Section 6(4) of Hindu Succession Act
Section 6(4) bars the jurisdiction of the court from recognising any right to proceed against the following persons, namely, the son, grandson or great-grandson, for the purposes of recovering a debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather, on the ground that a sincere obligation under Hindu law exists.
However, there is an exception laid down in the proviso to this subsection (4) of Section 6. It provides that if any such debt is due prior to the commencement of the amendment, then in that case, the right of the creditor shall not be affected. In the said situation, the creditor can proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of the debt due to him.
Section 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act
Section 6(5) simply states that this section shall not apply to the partition that took place prior to December 20, 2004.
Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act
Section 8 deals with the general rule of succession in the case of males. It states that a Hindu male who dies without making a will or intestate shall devolve or transfer the joint family property in accordance with these provisions:
- Upon the Class I heirs specified in the schedule,
- In the absence of heirs in Class I, then upon the relatives specified in Class II of the schedule.
- In case of absence of heirs in the two above-stated classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased,
- Lastly, in case of absence of the agnates, then upon the cognates of the deceased.
However, in cases where no cognates also survive the deceased, then in such cases escheat applies. Under Hindu law, Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provides the principle of escheat. Section 29 deals with the failure of heirs, it provides that if a person has died intestate without leaving any qualified heir to take care of his property, in that case the property shall be devolved on the government in the same manner as it had been devolved to an heir with the same rights and liabilities.
Section 19 of Hindu Succession Act
Section 19 deals with the mode of succession for two or more heirs. It states that if two or more heirs succeed together in the property of an intestate, then they shall take the property in accordance with per capita and not as per stripes and as common tenants, not as joint tenants.
Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act
This section specifically deals with testamentary succession and states that any Hindu, by way of will or other testamentary disposition of property, may dispose of any property that is capable of being disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or in accordance with any other law in force and applicable to Hindus.
Precedents involved in Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors. (2016)
Commissioner Wealth Tax, Kanpur & Others vs. Chander Sen and others (1986)
In this case, Rangi Lal, the father of the respondent, had immovable property and a family business. After Rangi Lal died, he left behind his son Chander Sen and his two grandsons. At the time of his death, the total amount of Rs. 1,85,043 was in his books of account. During the wealth tax assessment in the year 1966–67, the respondent Chander Sen, with his two sons, constituted a joint family and filed the tax return of his total wealth by also including the family property, which was devolved upon him through survivorship, including the assets of the business. However, the sum of Rs. 1,85,013 was not included in the said return by the assessee. In the next assessment year, the sum of Rs. 1,82,742 was also not included.
The respondent, before the income tax officer, claimed that the amounts claimed were in his individual capacity and were excluded from the family property. The income tax officer disallowed all contentions raised by the respondent-assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue officers, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax allowed the contentions of the respondent-assessee that the capital of Chander Sen is in his individual capacity. The High Court of Allahabad also affirmed the order pronounced by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The issue regarding whether the income or assets of a son inherited by him from his father by devolution when separated by partition could be assessed as the income of a Hindu undivided family or as the individual income of the son went to the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The Court agreed with the decision given by the High Court of Allahabad by stating that, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the legal position is that when a son is being devolved with the property by intestate succession, it is to be assessed as individual property and not as the property of a Hindu undivided family.
Bhanwar Singh vs. Puran (2008)
In this case, a person, namely Bhima, died in 1972, leaving behind his property with his son Sant Ram and three daughters. The appellant in the present case, namely Bhanwar Singh, son of Sant Ram, filed a suit for partition to set aside the alienations between the children of Bhima. The trial court gave its decision in favour of the appellant but the First Appellate Court overturned the same. The Supreme Court relied upon the judgement given in Commissioner Wealth Tax, Kanpur & Others vs. Chander Sen and others (1986) and held that as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property would discontinue being joint family property once the son inherits it after getting it by way of intestate succession.
Yudhishter vs. Ashok Kumar (1986)
In this case, the landlord-respondent filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal in order to evict the appellant on the grounds of bona fide personal requirements. However, the Rent Tribunal dismissed his petition on the said grounds. He approached the Rent Appellate Tribunal, wherein it was stated that the house in which the respondent is living with his family belongs to his grandfather. Therefore, he is not the owner of the house but a licensee. Additional evidence was also presented by the respondent, which was allowed by the appellate authority.
Later, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which was dismissed by the High Court. Lastly, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision given by the High Court by stating that the respondent fulfilled all requirements in order to maintain an action on eviction. The Court also referred to the question regarding a son’s right to his father’s property after his birth. It was observed that when the father gets the property by way of inheritance from his father, then his son should have a share in it, irrespective of whether the property is separated by partition or is joint family property.
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum & Ors. (1978)
In this case, Khandappa Sangappa Magdum died on June 27, 1960, leaving behind his wife, Hirabai, two sons, Gurupad and Shivapad, and his three daughters. The wife of the deceased, by way of filing a civil complaint, asked for a 7/24 share of the joint family property. If the shares were asked for during the lifetime of the deceased, then Hirabai would be getting 1/4th of the said joint family property. The trial court stated that as the suit property was a joint family property, no partition took place. The issue arose in regard to Sections 6 and 8 as to what part of property would be given to the wife of the deceased, namely Hirabai. The trial court rejected the claim asked by the defendant and limited the share to 1/24th. The wife of the deceased, the defendant, preferred an appeal to the High Court of Bombay wherein the share was increased to 7/24th after placing reliance on Rangubai Lalji vs. Laxman Lalji as there was no earlier partition and the property belonged to a joint family. Now, being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Bombay, a special leave petition has been preferred before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the High Court of Bombay and stated that the decision of the High Court is well founded and correct.
Judgement given by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in its judgement, dismissed the civil appeal filed by the appellant and held that the ancestral property was devolved by succession after the death of Jagannath Singh as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After the death of Jagannath Singh in 1973, the ancestral property ceased to be a joint family property, and Mainabai, the wife of the deceased (Jagannath) and the coparceners (defendants herein), were the tenants in that property as common tenants and not as joint tenants. The appellant, being born in 1977, said that the ancestral property ceased to be a joint family property; therefore, the Apex Court stated that the suit filed by the appellant holds no value and is not maintainable.
Rationale behind this judgement
The Supreme Court primarily focused upon the preamble of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which states, “An Act to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus.” The judgements of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabhai Khandappa Magdum (1978) and Shyama Devi & Ors. vs. Manju Shukla & Anr. (1994) were referred by the Supreme Court, wherein it was observed that in the cases which are covered by the proviso of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it is important to carry out a fictional partition before the death of the deceased for the purpose of determining the share or part of the deceased in the joint family property.
The Court further relied upon its earlier decisions pronounced in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. vs. Chander Sen (1986), Yudhishter vs. Ashok Kumar (1987) and Bhanwar Singh vs. Puran (2008), where the court took a conjoint reading of sections 4, 6, 8 and 19, and it was stated that when the succession takes place as per these provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the whole joint family discontinues to be a joint family and the heirs of such deceased person shall become tenants in common and not jointly. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff in the case of Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh (2016), stated that Jagannath Singh, the grandfather of the plaintiff, died in 1973, and after his death, the joint family property discontinued to be a joint family property and was divided between his sons as an individual property.
Analysis of Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors. (2016)
The case of Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh is of utmost importance as it has paved the way for further judicial decisions regarding the inheritance of joint family property under Hindu law. This case has given a unique perspective with respect to the position of a son on his father’s property and his rights on his grandfather’s property. The major focus of this judgement is upon the construction of Sections 6, 8 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Supreme Court, by relying upon its earlier decisions, reiterated that on applying Section 8, if the succession is taking place in accordance with the said provision, then the joint family property ceases to be a joint family property, and after it ceases to be a joint family property, the persons who are holding that property shall be common tenants rather than joint tenants. Therefore, it could be stated that this case is an important instance in which the position of heirs in the joint family property under Hindu law is made clear by the Apex Court in the case of an intestate death.
Criticism
It can be inferred that, from the above mentioned cases, not much reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court in this regard. If we look into Chander Sen’s judgement, the subject matter was not the same, and it was opined that after the father’s death, the son acquires the property given to him in inheritance in his individual capacity. The same issue came up before the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhister vs. Ashok Kumar (1986) with regard to the self-acquired property and not the ancestral property. In Gurupad’s judgement, it was held that there was no prior partition and Sections 8 and 6 Proviso would apply to this case. It was relied to mean that upon the notional partition, the joint family property will be converted into individual properties, however, on the other side, Mulla, on Hindu law, by observing this case, stated that by the separation of joint family property into individual properties, the Supreme Court does not mean the total disruption of the joint family and it would not result in the cessation of coparcenary. In the case of Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh (2016), the Court has carried out a legal fiction of notional partition for carrying out the distribution of the share of the deceased and not to end the coparcenary.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, it can be inferred from various verdicts of the Supreme Court on the same issue that after the application of Section 8 or Proviso of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by reason of the death of a Hindu male, the property would be devolved by way of intestate succession rather than by way of succession, which consequently led to the cessation of joint family property. Also, it has been reiterated by the court in its various decisions. For instance, in Chander Sen’s case, in the case of the death of a Hindu male that is dealt with by Mitakshara law, the self-acquired property of the deceased would devolve to the Class-I legal heirs as their individual properties in their individual capacities. If the deceased had any ancestral property, then there would be a notional partition, and the share would be determined just before the deceased’s death.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is intestate succession?
Intestate succession is a situation wherein a person dies without making a will or testament. After his death, the assets owned by the deceased are divided according to the inheritance laws.
What is the concept of the Mitakshara system under Hindu law?
Mitakshara law was based on the concept of ownership by birth and implies that the son can claim the right to property when his father is alive. It basically deals with the laws of inheritance, which include the birthright of sons in their ancestral property. Except for Bengal and Assam, the Mitakshara law applies to the whole of India.
References
