The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that a mere plea of oral partition is insufficient to deny a daughter her statutory right as a coparcener in ancestral property. The Court held that under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, only a partition effected by a registered instrument or a decree of a competent court prior to December 20, 2004, is saved.
Case Background
The appeal was filed by Amrika Bai (Plaintiff), the daughter of Dhanuk Lodhi and Hemkunwar Bai. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for partition of ancestral agricultural land, contending that her father, Dhanuk, had inherited 6.30 acres of ancestral land. She alleged that her father, under the influence of his second wife Bhagwati Bai (Defendant No. 2), mutated approximately 5.50 acres of land in the names of his sons born from the second wife, retaining only a small portion.
The plaintiff claimed that her father had previously given her 1.25 acres of land for maintenance after she was driven out of her matrimonial home, but he later sold a portion of it illegitimately. She asserted her right as a Class-I heir.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff had already been allotted 1.00 acre of land and a portion of the house about eight years prior to the suit in a partition decided by villagers. They contended that since the partition and alienation took place prior to the statutory cut-off date, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. They further claimed that the marriage between Dhanuk and his first wife was dissolved by custom.
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that by virtue of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the disposition made prior to December 20, 2004, remained valid. The First Appellate Court upheld this dismissal.
Arguments
Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the appellant, argued that the lower courts committed a patent illegality by relying on an unproved oral partition. He submitted that the plaintiff, being a daughter, is a coparcener by birth and that the alleged transfer of land to the sons was a deliberate attempt to defeat her legitimate inheritance rights. He further argued that the plea regarding customary divorce and the validity of the second marriage remained unsubstantiated.
Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel for the respondents, contended that the plaintiff had already received her share during her father’s lifetime and was in possession of the same. He argued that the transaction fell within the protection of the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, delivering the judgment, framed the substantial question of law regarding whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit based on the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act.
The Court referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others (2020), reiterating that the amendment to Section 6 was intended to remove gender-based discrimination.
Justice Guru observed:
“The proviso to Section 6(1) saves only such disposition or alienation, including partition or testamentary disposition, which had taken place prior to 20.12.2004. However, as authoritatively held by the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra), the protection of the proviso extends only to a partition effected by a decree of a competent Court or by a registered instrument. An oral partition or an unregistered family arrangement, even if pleaded, does not qualify as a legally recognised partition for the purpose of the proviso.”
The Court noted that in the present case, the partition pleaded by the respondents was admittedly oral, and no registered partition deed or court decree prior to the cut-off date was produced.
Regarding the land previously given to the plaintiff, the Court stated:
“The allotment of land and a portion of the residential house to the plaintiff during the lifetime of her father, even if accepted, appears to be only an arrangement for maintenance and residence… and cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed as a complete and final partition of coparcenary property so as to extinguish the statutory rights conferred upon the plaintiff No.1.”
Furthermore, regarding the validity of the second marriage, the Court held that the burden to prove that a custom existed permitting the dissolution of the first marriage lay on the defendants, who failed to place any such evidence on record.
The High Court concluded that in the absence of a legally recognised partition, the plaintiff continues to be a coparcener in the ancestral property. The Court set aside the judgments and decrees of both the trial court and the appellate court.
The Second Appeal was allowed, with the Court declaring that the appellant is entitled to her lawful share in the suit property.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Amrika Bai v. Bhagwati Bai & Ors.
- Case Number: SA No. 26 of 2012
- Bench: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
