Summary
Applying Section 6 as it stood when the father died in 1959, the Court upheld the daughter’s successor’s one-sixth share in the branch property at issue. The son first took a half-share by birth; only the father’s remaining half devolved equally on his three children. The appellant could not abandon the original plaintiff’s pleaded case that the properties were ancestral coparcenary property.
Issues
- How the deceased father’s interest and his children’s shares were to be calculated under the historical succession provision.
- Whether the appellant could recast the ancestral-property pleading to seek a larger share.
Provisions considered
- Section 6, proviso and Explanation 1, as applicable in 1959, Hindu Succession Act, 1956A notional partition immediately before death identified the deceased’s own interest, separately from his son’s birthright share, for devolution to the Class I heirs. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13)
- Section 8, Hindu Succession Act, 1956The father’s own half-interest in the branch property devolved equally on his three surviving children as Class I heirs. (¶¶ 10, 13)
Held
- The appellant, succeeding to the original plaintiff’s estate, could not contradict her pleaded case that the property was ancestral. The unchallenged earlier partition and a share allotted to a sister-in-law did not establish a different character of property. (¶ 8)
- The notional partition required by the historical Section 6 had to be given its logical effect: ascertain the deceased’s own share first, then determine inheritance in that share in addition to any independent partition entitlement. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12)
- Within the one-third branch share of the wider coparcenary, the son had one-half by birth; the father’s remaining half devolved equally on the son and two daughters. The resulting shares within that branch property were four-sixths for the son and one-sixth for each daughter. The appellant inherited his mother’s one-sixth entitlement, not one-third. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court’s one-sixth share determination upheld. Interim status-quo order vacated. Parties to bear their own costs.