HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - CASE LAW - Section 6
Gurupadkhandappa v. Hirabaikhandappa
(Widow's share must be ascertained by adding the share to which she is entitled at a notional portion during her husband's life time and the share she would get in her husband's interest upon his death.)
Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. (Cj)
Facts:
- Khandappa Sangappa Magdum died on June 27, 1960 leaving behind, his widow Hirabai, two sons Gurupad and Shivapad andthree daughters.
- On November, 6, 1952 Hirabai filed for partition and separate possession of a 7/24 share in two houses, a land, two shops and movables on the basis that these properties belonged to the joint family consisting of her husband, and their two sons.
Issue:
What is the nature of the wife's or mother's right to a share at a partition between her husband and her sons?
Contention raised by Respondent:
- If a partition were to take place during Khandappa's lifetime between himself and his two sons, the plaintiff would have got 1/4th share in the joint family properties, the other three getting 1/4th share each. Khandappa's 1/4th share would devolve upon his death on six sharers, the plaintiff and her five children, each having a 1/24th share therein. Adding 1/4th and 1/24th, the plaintiff claims a 7/24th share in the joint family properties.
Contention raised by Appellant:
- He contended that the suit properties did not belong to the joint family, that they were Khandappa's self-requisitions and that, on the date of Khandappa's death in 1960 there was no joint family in existence.
- He alleged that Khandappa had effected a partition of the suit properties between himself and his two sons in December 1952 and December 1954 and that, by a family arrangement dated March 31, 1955 he bad given directions for disposal of the share which was reserved by him-for himself in the earlier partitions.
Held:
There is no justification for limiting the Respondent’sshare to 1/24th by ignoring the 1/4th share which she would have obtained had there been a partition during her husband's lifetime between him and his two sons. In a partition between Khandappa and his two sons, there would be four sharers in the coparcenary property, the fourth being Khandappa's wife, the plaintiff. Khandappa would have therefore got a 1/4th share in the coparcenary property ont he hypothesis of a partition between himself and his sons.
