Summary
A daughter’s challenge to a release deed executed by her mother during her minority failed. Under the succession law applicable to her father’s 1971 death, his notional coparcenary share devolved on the Class I heirs individually as tenants in common. The mother’s disposition was at most voidable and required timely challenge after majority; the Court restored dismissal of the partition suit.
Issues
- Whether the deceased coparcener’s share inherited by Class I heirs remained joint family property.
- Whether the mother’s release of her minor daughter’s share was void or voidable.
Provisions considered
- Section 6 as applicable at the 1971 death, Hindu Succession Act, 1956The surviving Class I female heirs attracted the proviso, requiring succession to the deceased’s notional partition share rather than survivorship. (¶¶ 7, 10, 14)
- Sections 19 and 30, Hindu Succession Act, 1956The heirs took individually as tenants in common, and the testamentary power over a coparcenary interest supported that conclusion. (¶¶ 7, 15)
- Section 8(1)–(3), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956A natural guardian’s unauthorised disposition was voidable, rather than void from inception. (¶¶ 7, 17)
Held
- The deceased’s one-third notional share devolved under succession law because he left Class I female heirs. The heirs held that inherited interest as tenants in common, rather than as joint family property merely because it remained undivided. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Even assuming a joint family, its karta is the manager rather than the minors’ natural guardian. Where a settlement relinquishes a minor’s share in favour of the karta, his conflict of interest prevents him from representing the minor; the mother could act as natural guardian in that situation. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The release was at most voidable and had to be challenged within three years of majority. The later registered partition and settlement, attested by the plaintiff’s husband, also undermined her claim of ignorance of subsequent dealings. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court’s partition decree was set aside and the trial court’s dismissal of the suit restored. Pending applications also disposed of.