Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Smt. Dipo Vs. Wassan Singh and Ors.
AIR1983SC846, (1983)3SCC376
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: O. Chinnappa Reddy, D.A. Desai and, JJ.
Decided On: May 5th, 1983
FACTS:-
Smt. Dipo sued to recover the properties which belonged to her deceased brother Bua Singh. The suit was contested by the paternal cousins of Bua Singh, on the grounds that Smt. Dipo was not the sister of Bua Singh and even if she was, the defendants were preferential heirs according to custom, as the whole of land was ancestral in the hands of Bua Singh. Subordinate Judge 1st Class held in favour of Smt. Dipo. He held that the sister was excluded by collaterals in the case of ancestral property while she was entitled to succeed to non-ancestral property. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the District Judge, Amritsar was dismissed as the plaintiff did not present the appeal in question. A second appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed as barred by limitation, as a copy of the decree was filed after expiry of the period of limitation.
ISSUE:-
Whether the share of a coparcener in ancestral property is ‘ancestral’ property?
JUDGMENT:-
The Court held that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the second appeal as the fault was only technical. The first appeal was also erringly dismissed as the Rules of Procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to short circuit the decision on merits.
The Court accepted the finding that Smt. Dipo Singh was the sister of Bua Singh. Bua Singh was the only last male holder of the property and he had no male issue. There was no surviving member of a joint family who could take the property by survivorship. ‘Ancestral property’ as regards the male issue of the propositus is his absolute property and not ancestral property as regards other relations. A person inheriting property from his three immediate personal ancestors holds it and must hold it, in coparcenary with his sons, sons’ sons, and sons’ sons’ sons but as regards other relations he holds it and is entitled to hold it, as his absolute property.
Share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property only as regards his male issue. As regards other relations, it is separate property and if the coparcener dies without leaving male issue, it passes to his heirs by succession. The defendants were collaterals of Bua Singh and as regards them the property was not ‘ancestral property’ and hence the plaintiff was the preferential heir. Plaintiff was entitled to a decree in respect of all the plaint properties.
HELD:-
Decree was given in favour of the plaintiff for all the plaint properties. The share of a coparcener in his ‘ancestral property’ is ancestral property only as regards his male issue.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
