DERHA versus VISHAL & ANR.

DERHA versus VISHAL & ANR.

Applying Explanation 1 to Section 6, Phannuram's share as on his death is deemed to be one-third; Vishal, being a coparcener by birth, gets half of that one-third by birth and additionally a one-sixth share on intestacy under Section 8 (half of the remaining one-third divided equally among three children), resulting in Vishal getting 4/6 of Phannuram's one-third and each sister (including the appellant's mother) getting 1/6 of that one-third. Therefore the High Court correctly awarded the appellant 1/6th share and its order was upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Derha Ram; Respondent: Vishal; Respondent: Keja Bai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 4494 of 2010 (special Leave) / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against the Judgment and Order Dated 31.03.2009 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in SA No. 891 of 1999
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6, Section 8, Explanation 1 to Section 6, Mitakshara Coparcenary, Partition, Pleadings
Succession Law Property Law Civil Procedure Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 6 Section 8 Explanation 1 to Section 6 Mitakshara Coparcenary +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derha Ram

Appellant

Vishal

Respondent

Keja Bai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 4494 of 2010 (special Leave) / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against the Judgment and Order Dated 31.03.2009 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in SA No. 891 of 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit properties were Mitakshara coparcenary properties or joint properties
  2. 2 How to apply Section 6 (and Explanation 1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Section 8 to determine the shares of heirs of a deceased coparcener
  3. 3 Whether the appellant can adopt a stance contrary to the original plaintiff's pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

Applying Explanation 1 to Section 6, Phannuram's share as on his death is deemed to be one-third; Vishal, being a coparcener by birth, gets half of that one-third by birth and additionally a one-sixth share on intestacy under Section 8 (half of the remaining one-third divided equally among three children), resulting in Vishal getting 4/6 of Phannuram's one-third and each sister (including the appellant's mother) getting 1/6 of that one-third. Therefore the High Court correctly awarded the appellant 1/6th share and its order was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal dismissed.
  • Interim order dated 09.10.2009 vacated.