GUR NARAIN DAS AND ANOTHER versus GUR TAHAL DAS AND OTHERS

GUR NARAIN DAS AND ANOTHER versus GUR TAHAL DAS AND OTHERS

An illegitimate son of a Sudra who cannot enforce partition during his father's lifetime is entitled to enforce partition after the father's death if the father was separate from his collaterals and has left separate property and legitimate sons. The plaintiff, being a Sudra and a coparcener, is entitled to partition.

Parties
Appellant: Gur Narain Das and Another; Respondent: Gur Tahal Das and Others; Respondent: Legal representative of respondent No. 4; Agent for the Appellants: Naunit Lal; Agent for the Legal Representative of 4th Respondent: R. N. Sachthey
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 May 1952
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, with modification to decree regarding rights of defendant No. 5.
Legal Topics
Partition, Hindu Law, Illegitimate Son Rights, Coparcenary Under Mitakshara
Family Law Property Law Partition Hindu Law Illegitimate Son Rights Coparcenary Under Mitakshara

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gur Narain Das and Another

Appellant

Gur Tahal Das and Others

Respondent

Legal representative of respondent No. 4

Respondent

Naunit Lal

Agent for the Appellants

R. N. Sachthey

Agent for the Legal Representative of 4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an illegitimate son of a Sudra can demand partition of his father's separate property after the father's death
  2. 2 Status of Budparkash Das and Nandkishore Das: joint or separate
  3. 3 Possession of property and maintainability of partition suit

Ratio Decidendi

An illegitimate son of a Sudra who cannot enforce partition during his father's lifetime is entitled to enforce partition after the father's death if the father was separate from his collaterals and has left separate property and legitimate sons. The plaintiff, being a Sudra and a coparcener, is entitled to partition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, with modification to decree regarding rights of defendant No. 5.

Orders

  • Decree of the High Court affirmed, subject to modification that defendant No. 5 is only entitled to a share in properties in schedules C and D and has no share in other schedules.
  • No order as to costs.