RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU SINCE DECEASED THR. L.RS.& ORS; versus GOBERDHAN SAO SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS.
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 813, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
. 
.-
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 813 
RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU SINCE DECEASED 
THR. L.RS.& ORS; 
v. 
GOBERDHAN SAO SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS. 
. . 
: 
(Civil Appeal No. 1110 ofZ006) 
APRJL06,2017 
: [RANJAN GOGOi ~ND ASIIOK BHUSIIAN, JJ.) · 
•Partition - Allocation of shares as regards joint family 
properties - Under s.3(2) of Hindu Womens "Rights to Property Act, 
1937, on the death ofhusband, his widow becoiues entitle to a share 
in the joint family property - Further, property of a joi/1/ family 
does not cease to belong to the family merely because. the family is 
represe111ed by a single co-parcener who possesses rights which an 
owner of property may possess - Hindu Womens Rights to Property 
Act, 1937 - s,3(2) - Hindu Succession.Act, 1956 - s.6. 
Partlyallowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The common ancestor of parties 'FM' died in 
the year 1940. At the time of his death, the Hindu Women's 
Rights to Property Act, 1937 was. in force. 1Jnder Section 3(2) of 
the 1937 Act, on the death of'Jo"M' his widow/wife 'PD' became 
entitled to a share in the joint family property. However, the 
. share· of 'PD' would remain undeterinined till such time when 
there is a partition in the family. On the date of death of 'FM', 
his son 'MS' did not have any male issue. However, the joint 
· family in question can be understood to have continued with 'MS' 
as the 'Karla' arid the property continued to belong to the joint 
Jamily.Thus, the position prior to the coming into force
of the 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that the joint family continued 
on the death of '.FM' witi1 'MS' as the sole coparcener and the 
joint family properties continued to belong to the. family and 
furthermore 'PD' continued to have a share in the property. [Paras 
9, 10, 11, 121 (817-E, G; sis-c, }'-GJ 
· 
.· 2.1 After the death of 'MS' in the year l961, following the 
provisions of ~eetion 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a 
notional partition· just before the death of 'MS' will have to be 
813 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
814 
A 
D 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
' 
' 
presumed. There would, therefore, be 8 sharers in. the joint family 
properties and the share of each one. of them would equal i.e. 1/. ' '' 
81h each. Insofar as 'DD', the wife of 'MS' is concerned, she 
would be entitled to l/8th share of the joint family properties 
upon the notional partition being given effect to. [Para 14) (819-
E-F; 820-A) 
. 
2.2. Next aspect of the case is with regard to the l/8th share 
of 'MS' and the devolution of the said share to the surviving 
members of the joint family. ;In this regard, it can be lield will1out 
any difficulty.that under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu 
Succession Act, 1956 the share of 'MS' in tbe joint family property 
(1/81h) would devolve by intestate succession among surviving 
members of the joint family. Thus afler 1961, 'PD' being the widow 
of '.FM' bad l/81h plus 1/721h share in the joint family. property, 
namely, 10/72th share. 'PD' died in the year 1967 leaving behind 
her daughter 'UD' and the children of her predeceased son 'MS'. 
'UD' will be entitled to receive one-half share of 'PD' i.e. half of 
' 10/72th share i.e. 10/144th sbare. The remaining 10/144th share. 
that would go to the branch of'MS' will have to be divided amongst 
8 heirs of 'MS' 1 namely, the widow and the seven children. The 
appellants-defendants are entitled to 38.1% share in tbc joint 
family property instead of 3.7.5% as ordered by the courls below. ·
[Paras 15, 16, 18) [821-D-E, II; 822-A-B; 823-D) · 
Patti Lakshmi Perumallu' v. Patti Krishna. Vena111111a 
(1965) 1 SCR 26; Gowli Buddmma v. Co111111issio11er of.· 
Income Tax, Mysore, Bangalore 119661 3 SCR · 224;. 
Gurupad Khandappa Afagdum v. Hirabai Khandappa .... 
Mdgdum and Ors. (1978) 3 SCC 383 : [1978) 3 SCR . 
761 - relied on. 
' 
' 
' Case La·w Reference 
'' 
(1965) 1 SCR 26 
relied on. 
Para 10 
J1966J 3 SCR 224 
relied on 
Para 11 
Jl978J 3 SCR 761' 
relied on 
Para14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. i 110 '-
of2006: 
· 
· ' ·
RAM NATH SAO@ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO ·815 
j 
~ 
• ' 
~ 
. 
. 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2003 of the High Court 
A 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Appeal from Original Decree No. 307 of 
1989 .. 
Gaurav Agrawal, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Prashant Kumar, Advs. 
for the Appellants. 
' 
Arup Banerjee, M. K. Verma, Braj Ki shore Mishra, Advs. for the 
8 
·Respondents. 
· ·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. I. The appellants are the defendants in a 
partition suit filed by the.respondents, as plaintiffs, seeking partition. of c 
.. various properties specifically mentioned in Schedule 'B' and Schedule 
'C' of the plaint. 
· 
. . 2. Al the outset, the following genealogical table is being set ~ut to 
enable a clear and easy understanding of the facts and the findings with 
·. regard to the entitlement of the parties that would be arrived at in the · D 
course of the deliberations that follow. 
Fuchan Mah1o~died 1940 
Wife Puniya Devi:.. died 1967 
I 
-------------------------· 
1. 
Mithu Sao (son) 
(died 1961) 
! 
1. 
Ugni Devi (daughter) 
(died 1995) 
! 
----------------------
, 
I 
Jagar-· 
nath 
! 
Parasnath 
Dharamnath 
<Appellants) 
--------------------------
Temni (1 11 wife) 
! 
·---------------------
! 
Bilaso Devi (2"" Wife) 
I 
--------------------. 
I 
-
I 
I 
I 
Ra:mnath 
Kashinath · 
Duchwa 
·. 
Govardhan 
Jagdish 
Datdeo 
Sarib.·· 
CAppellantsl 
· fRespondentsl 
3. The case of the respondents pl~intiffs is that Fuchan Mahto
(died in 1940), the common ancestor of the parties had a son Muthu Sao 
E 
F 
G 
H
I;! 
IJ] 
I
816 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R.. 
who died in the year 1961. Mithu Sa9 had two wives, namely, Temiii (I• 
wife) and Bilaso Devi (2"' wife). At, the time of the filing of the suit for 
partition Temni (I" wife) was no/more,, The defendants in the suit 
Ramnath, Kashinath Buchwa are the sons and daughter of Mithu Sao 
and Temni (I• wife) whereas the plaintiffs Govardhan, Jagdish, Baldeo 
and Sarita are the sons and daughter ofMithu Sao and Bilaso Devi (2"' 
wife), who is a co-plaintiff. 
4. According to the plaintiffs, they along with the defendants 
constituted a joint Hindu Mitakshra familywhich owned ancestral land 
recorded under Khata No.19 of village Lapanga in the district of 
Hazaribagh. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the joint family also 
acquired lands in several other villages in the name of one or other 
members of the joint family. According to the plaintiffs, the parties 
continued in joint possession of the properties, both ancestral and 
subsequently acquired. As the members of joint family had increased it 
became inconvenient to continue to remain joint. Hence the suit for a 
decree of partition was filed. 
5. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, 011 the ground 
that lhere was .no unity of title and possession between the parties. 
According to the defendants, after the death of Mithu sao in the year, 
1961 or even before his death there was disruption in the family on 
account of the fact that
Mithu Sao had married twice. There were 
serious differences in the family and the children of the first wife Tenmi 
separated from Mithu Sao. It is the case of the defendants that after the 
death of Mithu Sao the children of first wife and second wife again 
separated. The defendants pleaded that as there was no joint family in 
existence both the parties had separate earnings and only the ancestral 
lands ofKhata No.19 are available for partition, major portion of which 
had been acquired by the Government and compensation amount had 
been evenly distributed amongst the parties according to their respective 
shares. According to the defendants, the other items of the Schedule 
property are self-acquired properties which are not liable to be partitioned. 
6. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs 
are entitled to the extent of 63-1/2 paise share in the Schedule 'B' property; 
items I to 8 of village Labaga in Schedule 'C'; items I and 2 of village 
Rasda in Schedule 'C'; and items I to 8 of village Hafuwa in Schedule 
'C' properties and 12 paise share in the properties mentioned in Item 
. 
. 
No.9 of village Hafuwa in Schedule 'C' properties. The defendants 
appellants, on the other hand, were found to be entitled to the remaining 
'
\,_
AM NATH SAO@ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO 
817 
R 
. 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
,, 
. 
37.112 paise in tl1.e Schedule 'B' property and items I to 8 of village ·A 
Labaga; items. (and 2 of village Rasda; and items I to 8 of village 
Hafuwa in Schedule 'C' properties. By the said decree which has been 
atlirmed in appeal by the High Court, so far as the property mentioned 
in item No.9 of Schedule 'C' is concerned, 12 and 11 paise share therein 
in favour of the plaintiffs and department have been granted. As the 
said property i.e. item No.9 of Schedule 'C' pertain to 23 paise share of 
the five sons of Muthu Sao in property purchased by them along. with 
other persons by 8 different sale deeds, the said property is not the 
subject matter of the present appeal in its truncated form, as indicated 
earlier. 
7. This Court while issuing notice in the present appeal confined 
the area of scrutiny to the question of"al location of sl~ares as regards to 
the properties found to bejointfamily properties". In view of the aforesaid 
limited notice, the issue with regard to the shares of the respective parties 
in the joint family properties alone will have to be determined in the 
present appeal and no question ofreopening the concurrent findings of 
the learned forums below with regard to the existence of joint family 
and the holding of properties jointly can arise . 
. ; . 8. We have heard the learned counsels fot the parties. 
9. Fuchan Mahto died in the year 1940. At the time of his
death, 
the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred 
to as "the 1937 Act") was in force. Section 3(2) of the 1937 Act which 
is relevant for the present case provided as follows: 
"3(2) When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu iaw other 
than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies having at 
• 
the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, 
his widow shall, subjectto the provisions of sub-section (3), have 
in the property the same interest as he himself had;" 
10. Under Section 3(2) of the 1937 Act, on the death ofFuchan 
Mahto his widow/wife Puniya Devi became entitled to a share in the 
joint family property. However, the share of Puniya Devi would remain 
undetermined till such time when there is a partition in the family. This 
is what has been held by this Court in Potti LakshmiPer11111a/l11 vs. 
Pot/I Krishna V<?namma1• The relevant paragraph in the said judgment 
to the above effect is extracted below: 
1(1965)1 SCR26 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
. 
' 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017]2 S.C.R. 
A 
"According to the theory underlying the Hindu la~ihe \~id ow of 
a deceased Hindu i~
1
his surviving half and, therefore, as long as 
she is alive he must be def'med to continue to exist in her_person. 
This surviving half,had under the Hindu law texts no right to claim 
a partition of the property of the family to which her husband · 
belonged. But the Act of 1937 has conferred that right upon her. 
When the Act says that she will have the same right as her husband 
had it clearly means that she would be entitled to be allotted the 
same share as her husband would have been entitled to had he 
liyed on the date on which she claimed partition." 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
11. On the date of death offuchan Mahto, his son Mithu Sao did 
not have any male issue. However, the joint family in question can be 
understood to have continued with Mithu Sao as the 'Karta' and the 
property continued to belong to tlie joint family. The above view would 
find support from the decision of this Court in Goirfi Buddanna v. 
Co111111issioner of/11co111e Tax. Mvsore. Bangalore', relevant portion 
of which is extracted below:, 
~Property of a joint family therefore does not cease to belong to 
the family merely because the family is represented by a single 
coparcener who possesses rights which an owner of property 
may possess. In the case in hand the property which yielded the 
income originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family. On the 
death
ofBuddappa the family which included a widow and females 
born in the family was represented by Buddanna alone but the 
property still continued to belong to that undivided family and 
income received iherefrom was taxable as income of the Hindu 
undivided family." · 
12. The position, therefore, prior to the coming into force of the 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that the joint family continued on the 
death ofFuchan Mahto with Mithu Sao as the sole coparcener and the 
joint family properties continued to be!on'g to the family and furthermore 
. . Puniya Devi continued to have a share in the prop.erty. 
13 .At this stage, tl1e provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession 
Act, I 956 will require a specific notice which is extracted below: 
"6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.- when a male 
Hindu dies. after the commencement of this Act, havingat the 
H 
'(1966) 3 SCR 224 
. 
'-
T
I'
\
T 
r 
.. 
RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO 
819 
, 
(RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
, 
•• 
~ tillJe of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, 
'his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the 
· surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with 
this act:. 
Provided that,' if the deceased had left him surviving a female 
relative specified in class-I of the Schedule or a male relative 
· specified in that class who claims through such female relative, 
the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property 
:~shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case 
rnay be, under this Act and not by survivors.hip. 
. Explanation.!-' For the purposes of this section, the interest 
.. of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the 
share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a 
partition of the property had taken place immediately before his 
"death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or 
not .. 
Explanation 2.-Nothingcontained in the proviso to this section 
shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself 
.. from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of 
his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to 
.'·therein."· 
14. After the death ofMithu Sao in the year 1961, following the 
provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a notional 
partition just before the death
ofMithu Sao will have to be presumed. 
. There would; therefore, be 8 sharers in the joint family properties and 
the share of each one of them would be as follows: 
· 
MithuSao 
118 
Bilaso Devi (wife) 
1/8 
Puniya Devl(mother) 
1/8 
Ramnath (son) 
118 
Kashinath (son) 
l/S 
Goverdhan (son) 
118 
· · Jagdish (son) 
118 
· Baldeo (son) 
1/8 
A 
B 
G 
D 
E 
F 
G . 
H
820 
A 
B 
• 
c 
D 
l 
E 
F 
G 
.... ,,... 
!1 
-
\ 
H 
' 
. , 
1
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
-
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
' 
Insofar as Bilso Devi, the wife of Mithu Sao is concerned, she 
would be entitled to I/8th share of the joint family properties upon the 
notional partition being given effect to. The share of the widow of a 
Hindu male coparcener following a notional partition has been recognized 
by this Court in· Guru pad Khandapva Magdum versus Hirabai 
Khandappa Magdum and others'. Paragraph 9 and 14 of the· report in 
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum (supra) may be usefully noted herein 
below: 
"9. The next step, equally important though not equally easy to 
work out, is to find out the share which the deceased had in the 
coparcenary property because after all, the plaintiff has a I/6th 
interest in that share. Explanation I which contains the formula 
for determiniiig the share of the deceased creates a fiction by 
providing that the interest of a Hindu Mistakshara coparcener 
. shall be deemed to be the share in tbe property that would have 
been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place 
immediately before his death. One must, therefore, imagine a state 
· of affairs in which a little prior to Khandappa's death, a partition 
of tl1e coparcenary property was effected between him and other 
members of the coparcenary. Though the plaintiff. not being a 
coparcener. was not entitled to demand partition yet. if a partition 
. were to take place between her husband
and his two sons. she 
would be entitled to receive a share equal to that of a son. (see 
Mu Ila's Hindu Law. Fourteenth Edition. page 403. para 315). In a 
partition between Khandappa and his two sons, there would be • 
four sharers in the coparcenary property, the fourth being 
Khandappa's wife, the plaintiff. Khandappa would have therefore 
got a I/4th share in ihe coparcenary property on the hypothesis of 
a partition between himself and, his sons. 
xxx xxx xxx 
14. The interpretation which we are placing upon the provisions 
of section 6 its proviso and explanation 1 thereto will further the 
·legislative intent in regard to the enlargement of the share of female 
heirs, qualitatively and quantitatively. The Hindu Law of 
Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 conferred heirship rights on 
the son's daughter, daughter's daughter and sister in all areas 
where the Mitakshara law prevailed. Section 3 df the Hindu 
Women's Rights.to Property Act, 1937, speaking broadly, 
• (1978) 3 sec 383
' 
-
!MM NATH SAO@ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO 
821 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
conferred upon the Hindu widow the right to a share in the joint 
A 
. family property as also a right to demand partition like any male 
member of the family. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides 
. by section 14(1) that any property possessed by a female Hindu, 
whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, 
shall be held by her as a full owner thereof and not as a limited · 8 
owner. By restricting the operation of the fiction created by 
ExpJanation I in the manner suggested by the appellant, we shall 
be taking a retrograde step, putting back as it were the clock of 
· social reform which has enabled the Hindu Woman to acquire an 
equal status with males in matters of property. Even assuming 
that two interpretations of Exp \anation I are reasonably possible, 
C 
we must prefer that interpretation which will further the intention 
of the legislature and remedy the injustice from wh.ich the Hindu 
. women have suffered over the years." 
[underlining is ours] 
15. Next aspect of the case is with regard to the I/8th share of 
Mithu Sao and the devolution of the said share to the surviving members 
of the joint family. In this regard, it can be held without any difficulty 
that under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 
the share ofMithu Sao in the joint family property (\/8th) would devolve 
by intestate succession, in the absence ofa will, in the following
manner. 
Bilaso Devi 
_I_ 
_I_ 
Puniya Devi 
Ramnath 
Kashinath 
Goverdhan 
J agd ish 
B aldeo 
Buchwa Devi 
Sarita 
8x9 
72 
I 
8x9 
_J_ 
8x9 
_1_ 
8x9 
_J_ 
8x9 
I 
-g,9 
I 
8x9 
_J_ 
8x9 
_J_ 
8x9 
= 
= 
_I_ 
72 
_J_ 
72 
_1_ 
72 
_J_ 
72 
I 
-12 
_I_ 
72 
_J_ 
72 
_J_ 
72 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H

·,,
• 
822 
A 
B 
·c 
D 
E 
·p 
G 
1 
-. H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 
c201112 s.c.R. 
···j 
16. Thus after 1961 Puniya Devi ~eing the widow of Fuchan Mah to 
had I/8th plus 1172lh share in the joint family property, nainely, I 0172• 
share. Puniya Devi died in the year I 967 leaving behind her daughter 
Ugni Devi and the children of her predeceased son Mithu Sao. Ugni 
Devi will be entitled to receive ~ne-half share of Puniya Devi i.e. halfof 
10/72'" share i.e. 101144"' share .. The remaining 101144"' share that 
wouid go to the branch ofMithu Sao will have to be divided amongst 8 
heirs ofMithu Sao, namely, the widow and the'seven children. Thus, the 
aforesaid I 01144"' share would devolve in the following nianner.' 
Bilaso Devi 
I 
x 
~10_ 
= 
10 
-8-
144 
. T152 
Ramnath 
_I_ 
x 
_10_ 
= 
10 
8 
144 
T152 
Kashinath 
..L 
x 
-1.!L. 
= 
-1.!L. 
8 
.-
144. 
1152 
Goverdhan 
..L 
x 
-1.!L. 
= 
-1.!L. 
8 
144 
1152 . 
Jagdish 
..L 
x 
-1.!L. 
= 
-1.!L. 
8 
144 
,, 1152 
•·/ . 10 
Baldeo 
I ' 
x 
= 
10 
-8-
144-. 
.·. T152 
Buchwa Devi 
I 
x 
_10_ 
= 
_10_ 
-8-
144 
1152 
Sarita 
..L 
x 
-1.!L. 
= 
-1.!L. 
8 
144 
1152 
I 7. Consequently the share of each of the parties would be as 
follows: 
BilasoDevi 
_L 
+ 
_!_ + _lQ_ = 14.76% 
8 
72 
1152 
Ramnath 
_L 
+ ._!_ 
-1: _lQ_ = 14.76%. 
8 
72 
I 152 
Kashinath 
_L 
+ 
_!_ + _lQ_ = 14.76% 
8 
72 
I 152 
Goverdhan 
_L + _!_ + - _lQ_ = 14.76% . 
8 
.72 
1152 
. ' 
'
• 
• 
RAM NATH' SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO 
· 
·;; 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
~ 
Jagdish 
_!_ 
+ 
_J_ + ..llL. = 14.76% 
8 
72 
1152 
Baldeo 
_!_ 
+ 
_J_ + ..llL. = 14.76% 
8 
72 
1152 
Buchwa: Devi 
_Q_ 
+ 
_J_ + ..llL. = 2.25% 
0 
72 
1.152 
Sarita 
_Q_ 
+ 
_J_ + ..llL. = 2.25% 
0 
72 
1152 
UgniDevi 
.lQ_ 
= 6.94% 
144 
Thus cakulated the share of the appellants would be : . 
14.76 (Ramnath) + 14.76 (Kashinath) + 2.25 (Buchwa Devi)+ 
6.94 (LRs. of Ugni Devi)= 38.1% 
18. In view of the above, it will be necessary to modify the decree 
passed by the learned trial Court as affirmed by the High Court by holding 
that the appellants -defendants are entitled to 38.1%.share in the joint 
family property instead of37.5% as ordered by the courts below. 
19. The appeal consequently is allowed to the extent indicated 
above and with the aforesaid modification of the decree passed by the 
learned trial Court as affirmed by the High Court. 
;>evika Gujral 
Appeal allowed. 
823 
A 
c 
D 
E