Case Law Details
Mukatlal Vs Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. And Ors. (Supreme Court India)
For establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.
Supreme Court of India recently addressed significant legal principles concerning the ownership rights of Hindu females in undivided joint family estates under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This case, Mukatlal Vs Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. And Ors., revolves around the inheritance and succession of property originally owned by Kishan Lal, a member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), highlighting complex legal nuances and historical family dynamics.
The dispute originated from the division of property after the death of Kishan Lal, which involved his sons Mangilal and Madho Lal. Following their respective deaths in 1912 and 1929, the legal intricacies intensified. Madho Lal, who died childless, left behind his widow, Smt. Nandkanwarbai, who later adopted Kailash Chand.
The pivotal moment came in 1949 when Kanwarlal, son of Mangilal, executed a will favoring his son Mukat Lal, thus inheriting substantial portions of the estate. This led to subsequent legal battles, including civil suits and appeals that spanned decades, culminating in the Supreme Court appeal in 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
Dear, I have been regularly going through the selected postings on Taxguru, and appreciate the same. Here is my small feedback on this post:
1. It has been stated in the review that “It rejected appeals challenging Smt. Nandkanwarbai’s claims, thereby upholding her adopted son Kailash Chand’s rights to pursue partition under succession laws.”
2. However, the judgement is otherwise.
27. On close scrutiny of the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court, we find that there is no consideration in these judgments that the predecessor of the plaintiff Kailash Chand or the plaintiff himself were ever in possession of the suit property or had acquired the same in the manner as indicated in the judgment of Sivadasan(supra).
28. As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained.
29. Resultantly, the judgment dated 2nd November, 2017 rendered by learned Division Bench and the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge are hereby reversed and set aside.
30. Consequently, the Revenue Suit No. 37 of 1979 filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
31. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.”
I am not able to clearly understand your review. There appears to be some contradiction, may please see.
Regards,
Yash Paul Bhola
ypbhola44@yahoo.co.in
Dear Sir,
We have made changes to clear the contradiction. Thanks for your observations.