PAVITRI DEVI AND ANR. versus DARBARI SINGH AND ORS.

PAVITRI DEVI AND ANR. versus DARBARI SINGH AND ORS.

A gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in Mitakshara coparcenary is invalid and does not qualify as testamentary disposition under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Upon demand for partition, the coparcener stands divided in status and can dispose of his share by testamentary disposition. The daughter, being a Class I heir, succeeds by intestate succession under Section 6 and is entitled to substitution as legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.

Parties
Appellant: Pavitri Devi; Respondents: Darbari Singh and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 September 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave; Remand to High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside; matter remitted; substitution application succeeded
Legal Topics
Mitakshara Coparcenary, Partition, Testamentary Disposition, Intestate Succession, Heir Substitution
Succession Family Law Civil Procedure Mitakshara Coparcenary Partition Testamentary Disposition Intestate Succession Heir Substitution

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pavitri Devi

Appellant

Darbari Singh and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave; Remand to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Hindu coparcener can dispose of undivided share by gift under Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956
  2. 2 Whether daughter of deceased coparcener is entitled to substitution as legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC
  3. 3 Validity of gift deed executed by coparcener for his undivided interest

Ratio Decidendi

A gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in Mitakshara coparcenary is invalid and does not qualify as testamentary disposition under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Upon demand for partition, the coparcener stands divided in status and can dispose of his share by testamentary disposition. The daughter, being a Class I heir, succeeds by intestate succession under Section 6 and is entitled to substitution as legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside; matter remitted; substitution application succeeded

Orders

  • Appellant (daughter) is brought on record as legal representative of the deceased coparcener under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC
  • High Court order set aside; matter remitted to High Court for disposal on merits