Case: J. S. Bajaj &amp; Ors Vs. Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani &amp; Ors

the sons under Rule 19 (3) Rule 19 may here be read:"Special provision for payment of compensation to joint families;(1) Where a claim relates to properties left by the members of an undivided Hindu family in West Pakistan (hereafter referred to as the joint family) compensation shall be computed in the manner hereinafter provided in this Rule.(2) Where on the 26th September, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the relevant date the joint family consisted of:(a) two or three members entitled to claim partition, the compensation payable to such family shall be computed by dividing the verified claim into two equal shares and calculating the compensation separately on each such share.(b) four or more members entitled to claim partition, the compensation payable to such family shall be computed by dividing the verified claim into three equal shares and calculating the compensation separately on each such share.(3) For the purpose of calculating the number of the members of a joint family under sub-rule (2), person who on the relevant date:-(a) was less than 18 years of age,(b) was a lineal descendant in the main line of another living members of joint Hindu family entitled to claim partition shall be excluded:Provided that where a member of a joint family has died during the period commencing on the 14th August, 1947 and ending on the relevant date leaving behind on the relevant date all or any of the following heirs namely:-(a) a widow or widows,(b) a son or sons whatever the age of such son or sons but no lineal ascendant in the main line, then all such heirs shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, be reckoned as one member of the joint Hindu family.Explanation:- For the purpose of this rule, the question whether a family is joint or separate shall be determined with reference to the status of the family on the 14th day of August, 1947 and every member of a joint family shall be deemed to be joint notwithstanding the fact that he had separated from the family after that date.4. According to the High Court the other living member of the joint Hindu family whose lineal descendants are to be excluded under sub-rule (3) (b) must be a person other than their own father. This view, in our opinion, is contrary to the plain words used in this sub-rule. The High Court expressed its opinion in these words:"It is clear that this condition is intended to apply to a case where a joint family consists of more than two person where each one of them is entitled to claim partition and the members sought to be excluded are lineal descendants of one of such members. It is only in such cases that it could be said that they were lineal descendants of a member who was entitled to claim partition against another. In the present case the father and each of the sons is entitled to claim partition against each other. If the lineal descendants are to be excluded even in a case like the present it only means that all the descendants of the father must be excluded even though there is no other member against whom the father can seek to enforce partition. Having regard to the words used the only interpretation which can be placed on Cl. (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19, is the one adopted by us."The error into which the High Court seems to have fallen is that it has assumed that a person against whom partition can be claimed by the father of the lineal descendants constituting the joint Hindu family must be some member of that family other than his lineal descendants and that it excludes his right to claim partition when the only other members of the joint family are his own lineal descendants.For this assumption there does not seem to us to be any justification either in the language or in the scheme of the Act and the rules or in any other provision of law applicable to the parties before us and governing the present controversy.5. According to the general provisions of Hindu Law the father in a joint Hindu family has the power to partition the joint family property and indeed in the present case the High Court has accepted the legal position that the father and each of his sons are entitled to claim partition against each other. It is only on the language of Rule 19 (3) and as the judgment under appeal suggests, on that Courts disinclination to accept as proper, the exclusion of the sons when the joint family consists only of the father and his sons that the High Court construed Rule 19 (3) in the manner stated above. We are unable to find any warrant for this view. The plain reading of Rule 19 (3) is against it.The language is not susceptible of the meaning that there should be in existence some member of the joint family other than the sons, against whom the father should be entitled to claim partition. The words of the sub-rule being plain and unambiguous they have, in our view, to be construed in the natural and ordinary sense.No cogent reason has been suggested for departing from the rule of literal construction in this case. The consequence flowing from this construction is quite intelligible and seems to us to be rational and logical.The special provision embodied in Rule 19 for paying compensation to joint Hindu families is, in our view, intended to treat a joint Hindu family consisting only of a father and his sons as one unit for the purpose of payment of compensation for the joint family property left in Pakistan. Such a joint family is not intended to be broken up by the statutory scheme of the Act and the Rules.Sub-rule (3)(b) of Rule 19 was, in our opinion, correctly construed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the High Court was wrong in disagreeing with it and in allowing the writ petition.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The error into which the High Court seems to have fallen is that it has assumed that a person against whom partition can be claimed by the father of the lineal descendants constituting the joint Hindu family must be some member of that family other than his lineal descendants and that it excludes his right to claim partition when the only other members of the joint family are his own lineal descendants.For this assumption there does not seem to us to be any justification either in the language or in the scheme of the Act and the rules or in any other provision of law applicable to the parties before us and governing the present controversy.5. According to the general provisions of Hindu Law the father in a joint Hindu family has the power to partition the joint family property and indeed in the present case the High Court has accepted the legal position that the father and each of his sons are entitled to claim partition against each other. It is only on the language of Rule 19 (3) and as the judgment under appeal suggests, on that Courts disinclination to accept as proper, the exclusion of the sons when the joint family consists only of the father and his sons that the High Court construed Rule 19 (3) in the manner stated above. We are unable to find any warrant for this view. The plain reading of Rule 19 (3) is against it.The language is not susceptible of the meaning that there should be in existence some member of the joint family other than the sons, against whom the father should be entitled to claim partition. The words of the sub-rule being plain and unambiguous they have, in our view, to be construed in the natural and ordinary sense.No cogent reason has been suggested for departing from the rule of literal construction in this case. The consequence flowing from this construction is quite intelligible and seems to us to be rational and logical.The special provision embodied in Rule 19 for paying compensation to joint Hindu families is, in our view, intended to treat a joint Hindu family consisting only of a father and his sons as one unit for the purpose of payment of compensation for the joint family property left in Pakistan. Such a joint family is not intended to be broken up by the statutory scheme of the Act and the Rules.Sub-rule (3)(b) of Rule 19 was, in our opinion, correctly construed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the High Court was wrong in disagreeing with it and in allowing the writ petition.