in ,

Self acquired property must be distributed as per S. 8 & not S.6 of Hindu Succession Act: MP High Court

HC
Share
  •  
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    1
    Share

Recently, MP High Court held that When the property is self-acquired and the owner died intestate, that property would devolve in Class-1 heirs equally as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act for the reason that Section 6 relates to co-parcenary property.

 An appeal is filed by the appellant (original defendant No.1) under Section 96 of the C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge.

The court held that Determination of the share by the trial Court as per Section 6 of the Act, 1956 is not proper, whereas the same ought to have been computed. As per Section 8 of the Act, 1956. In self-acquired property since the grandson and granddaughter are excluded from heir in Class-1, therefore, the share in the property ought to have been determined among Class-1 heir.

The Supreme Court in the case of Radha Bai has very categorically laid down that in self-acquired property, Class-1 heir has only interest in the property but none-else. In the said case, the question was “the heirs mentioned in Class-1 of the Schedule are son, daughters etc. including the son of a predeceased son but does not include specifically the grandson, being, a son of a son living.

Further in the case of Yudhishter, the Supreme Court has observed that whenever the father gets a property from whatever source from the grandfather or from any other sources and also observed when son inherited the property in the situation contemplated by Section 8, he does take it as a karta of his own undivided family but takes it in its individual capacity.

Court said, Since it was a self-acquired property of Shankar Singh and after his death, the property was inherited by Rudra Singh alone, who was its sole owner. After the death of Rudra Singh, the suit property was inherited by his wife and children in equal share. Upon the death of his wife Tarabai, the property devolved upon her children. Thus, at best, the plaintiff can claim to get 1/6th share in the suit property and not 7/18th share as held by the trial Court. Since wife of Rudra Singh got the share in the property after the death of Rudra Singh and wife also died in the year 1991, therefore, her share would also devolve in her children.

Accordingly, 1/6th share of each child of Rudra Singh has to be worked out. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is therefore defective, not computing the proper share of the plaintiff and as such the said decree is modified to the extent that instead 7/18th share, the plaintiff would be entitled to get 1/6th share in the suit property.

Also Read  Schools shut, no mid-day meal; SC directed all the states to come out with uniform policies