TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the suit property was self-acquired property of the deceased or joint family property acquired from joint family nucleus; (ii) whether the widow, as a female Class I heir, could claim partition and a share in the deceased coparcener's interest, and whether partition of the dwelling house was barred by Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Issue (i): whether the suit property was self-acquired property of the deceased or joint family property acquired from joint family nucleus.
Analysis: The evidence did not support the plea of self-acquisition. The property was found to have been built after sale of earlier family properties, and the plaintiff failed to show that the construction was from the deceased's separate funds. Once a joint family nucleus was shown, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to rebut the presumption of joint family character, which she failed to do.
Conclusion: The property was held to be joint family property and not the self-acquired property of the deceased.
Issue (ii): whether the widow, as a female Class I heir, could claim partition and a share in the deceased coparcener's interest, and whether partition of the dwelling house was barred by Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Analysis: Section 6, read with its proviso and explanation, was held to introduce a legal fiction of partition immediately before death for the limited purpose of ascertaining the deceased coparcener's share, and that fiction was treated as carrying the consequence that the female heir could claim partition of the deceased's share. The Court rejected the view that the remaining coparcenary interest must continue by survivorship in favour of the son. As to the dwelling house, Section 23 postponed partition of the residential first floor so long as the male heir did not choose to divide it, while the ground floor and out-houses were liable to be divided according to shares.
Conclusion: The widow was held entitled to a share both in the deceased's interest and in her own right, but no partition was ordered for the occupied first floor of the dwelling house until the male heir elected to divide it.
Final Conclusion: The decree was modified to enlarge the widow's share and to confine physical partition to the divisible portions of the property, while preserving joint user of the residential floor.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a Mitakshara coparcener dies leaving a female Class I heir, the explanation to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 requires a notional partition immediately before death to ascertain the deceased's share, and that share devolves by succession, enabling the female heir to seek partition, subject to the special restriction in Section 23 regarding a dwelling house.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
