In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court, the case of Chikkanna v. Joint Family has clarified the rights over joint family property. The dispute, involving the grandchildren of Chikkanna and the status of property inherited from the father, sheds light on the intricacies of ancestral and joint family property under Hindu law. The judgement provides important insights on the distinction between individual ownership and coparcenary rights, impacting future inheritance cases. #SupremeCourt #JointFamilyProperty #LegalCase
Facts
- Respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10 filed a suit challenging a compromise dated March 25, 1976.
- The compromise was entered into between the appellant and respondent nos. 7, 8, and 9 without the consent of respondent nos. 1 to 6 and 10.
- The suit sought a declaration that the compromise did not bind the rights of the plaintiffs.
- The trial Court initially dismissed the suit on grounds that the property was not proven to be joint family property.
- The plaintiffs appealed this decision in Regular First Appeal No. 611 of 1999 before the High Court.
- The appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is a purchaser of the property involved in the suit.
- The genealogy shows that respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent no. 10 are grandsons of the propositus Chikkanna, who purchased the suit property from his sister.
- The High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
- The court held that the subject property was joint family property in the hands of defendant nos. 2 to 4.
- It was determined that the compromise would not bind the plaintiffs, who are the sons of defendant nos. 2 and 3.
Also Read: Judgment: Dispute Resolution in Infrastructure Contracts
Arguments
- The property in question was sold by the three sons of Chikkanna to Muthappa in 1950 for Rs. 1000, at which time it did not hold the character of joint family property.
- The grandchildren of Chikkanna, who are the plaintiffs, were not even born at the time of the sale.
- The compromise agreement later made by the original plaintiff did not change the property’s character to joint family property.
- The trial court correctly found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the property was joint family property.
- The High Court’s finding that the subsequent compromise did not bind the plaintiffs is based on a misconception of the applicable Hindu law.
- Therefore, the property in question cannot be considered as joint family or coparcenary property.
- The property inherited from the father by his sons becomes joint family property in the hands of the sons.
- The subject property stood reassumed as joint family property on restoration of possession in pursuance to the decree of the Court.
- A compromise executed between the parties during the execution appeal without the consent of the plaintiffs cannot bind the rights of the plaintiffs.
- Mere filing of an execution appeal does not invalidate the reconveyance decree and the restoration of possession.
- The clause of reconveyance enured to the benefit of the family, and the decree and sale deed executed in execution fully effected the reconveyance.
- The plaintiffs had a right, title, and interest in the subject property which was affected by the compromise to which they were not parties.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment: SAIL vs. Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union
Analysis
- The property in question was originally purchased by Chikkanna, the propositus of the family.
- The property became ancestral in the hands of the children of Chikkanna, who are defendants 2 to 4, as they inherited it.
- The compromise decree in Execution Appeal No 2 of 1974 would bind defendants 2 to 4 as parties to the compromise, but not the share of the grandsons of Chikkanna (plaintiffs) who were not involved.
- After the property was sold and reconveyed to defendants 2 to 4, its status as joint family property was restored.
- The compromise executed between the parties later did not involve the grandsons of Chikkanna, and hence did not bind their rights over the property.
- According to established law, property inherited from the father becomes joint family property in the hands of the sons, but is ancestral only as regards to male issue.
- In this case, the grandsons of Chikkanna (original plaintiffs) were not party to the compromise and the property was considered joint family property at that time.
- If an individual inherits property and has no male descendants at that time, he holds the property as an absolute owner.
- The property was purchased by Chikkanna from his sister and inherited by defendants 2 to 4 after his death.
- Upon thorough examination of the material available, it was concluded that the compromise did not affect the rights of the grandsons of Chikkanna.
- Property inherited from paternal ancestors is considered ancestral property for the male descendants of the inheritor.
- For other relatives, this property is considered the absolute property of the inheritor.
- Reference to Mulla’s Principles of Hindu Law (15th Edn.) for further information.
- Property in the hands of respondents 7 to 9 is considered joint family property.
- This confers coparcenary property character on the property in the hands of respondents 1 to 6.
- The appeal has been deemed without substance and dismissed.
Also Read: Dismissal Upheld in Disciplinary Proceedings of CISF Constable
Decision
- Parties have taken possession of their respective portions as indicated
- Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
- No costs
Case Title: DODDAMUNIYAPPA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Vs. MUNISWAMY
Case Number: C.A. No.-007141-007141 / 2008
