Clarification on uttam v/s saubhag singh and others

Hi Sir,

Thanks for your reply. I am not able to see such reference in the judgement. If you can clarify little more will really help me to understand the judgement.

If I can put my question in very simple way

My father during his life time possessed several joint family properties and looking after the properties as kerta. These properties were bought by my grandfather who died in 1960. Now my father died in 1998 intestate. 

Can my sister married in 1993 claim the share in this coparsonery property.

Thanks and Regards,

Thanks and Regards,

Uttam Singh merely clarfies the position that if a karta or any co-parcener dies and such co-parcener is survived by a class I heir which can be the widow or the daughter, the partition will be effected (this was already contained in Section 6 proviso) and once partition is effected joint-property holding comes to an end.( this is what has been held)
See in your case, what you need to specify is whether your grandfather was survived by a class I female heir or not (as in your grand-daughter or your fathers sister) If yes.
Then proviso to Section 6 got attracted and there existed a notional partition. Thus say i represent your grandfather as G, and is survived by your grand mother W, and his daughter D1, D2 and D3 and your father F)
(The property got partitioned in 1960 only with the following division
W gets 1/3rd + 1/15th of joint property.
F gets 1/3rd + 1/15th of joint property.
D1, D2 and D3 get 1/15th of joint property.
So this was the position in 1960 when your grandfather died.
Thereafter when your father died in 1989, the property would be deemed to be his self acquired property and would be equally divided amongst his class 1 heirs. Thus you sisters will have an equal right as you

Sir,

Thanks for your reply. My issue is little different and I am unable to understand the issue with respect to this judgement. I will be thankful to you if you can provide some inputs.

Please Note that I am the third party and bonafied purchaser of the A property land not a family member. I am the defendant No. 10 to the case.

Daughter has filed a case that the suit schedule A and B properties are joint family properties of her father. She and defendant No. 1 to 9 constitute a Joint Hindu Undivided Family governed by the Hindu Mitakshara School of Law and that Joint Hindu Undivided Family is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. She further avers that her father manages the affairs of joint family property and looking after the schedule properties as Kartha thereof. After the death of her father she as a co-parcener of the Joint family, she is entitled to 1/8th share in the Scheduled Properties.

In one para she also mentioned that the properties are purchased by her father however she has not given any more details when and how these properties became the joint family properties. Whether it was bought with the nucleus of ancestral property or it was self-acquired impressed with the joint family. Those details were not mentioned.

I have first filed the IA for insufficient court fee stating that the properties are self-acquired of her father and not in joint possession. She is also seeking the sale deed not binding on her which is indirect way of seeking the cancelation of the sale deed to evade the court fee. Court has rejected my application stating that as per averments of plaint, plaintiff is seeking partition from her joint family property and Further it is to be noted that the plaintiff has not sought for cancellation of sale deed in question. On the other hand, she has prayed to declare that such documents are not binding on her. In the above circumstances court fee is sufficient,

Later after Prakesh vs. Phulavathi case was decided by the SC, I again filed the another IA stating since father was not alive as mentioned in the plaint as on sept, 2005 she is not entitled for any share in the joint family properties.

Court has accepted the IA and rejected the entire plaint. In the order copy court has also included the ref. from its own from uttam vs saubhag singh case

“After devolution of joint family property as per S.8 HAS upon death of male Hindu intestate, property would cease to be joint family property and said female heir and other coparceners succeeding to the same would hold their respective share in property as tenants-incommon and not as joint tenants”

Now She has filed the appeal in HC stating that she has filed the suit for separate partition from the self-acquired properties of her father. She has not mentioned in the plaint the it was an ancestral properties therefore Prakesh vs. Phulavathi case was not applicable. She is also seeking to declare sale deed Null and Void.  

What is your suggestion under these circumstances for me?

Thanks and Regards,

Sandeep