ANAR DEVI AND ORS.versusPARMESHWARI DEVI AND ORS.

A                             ANAR DEVI AND ORS.
                                          v.
                        PARMESHWARI DEVI AND ORS.

                              SEPTEMBER 18. 2006

B                 [B.N. AGRAWAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR. JJ.]


          Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

           s.6, Explanation /-Devolution of interest in coparcena1y property--
C   Father and his adopted son constitllling Mitakshara coparcenwy---Father
    having two daughters also-On the death of father, daughters claiming 213
    share in property---Held, in view of s.6 and Explanation I thereto, notion{ll
    partition of the suil properlies be/ween father and his adopted son has to be
    assumed immediate(v before the death of the father and that being so his
D   undivided interest in suit property, which was half, devolved on his death
    upon his three children. i.e. 1he adopled son and 1he 1wo daughters in equal
    proportion-Adopted son would get half of the entire property which right he
    acquired on the date of adoption and one third of the remaining half which
    devofred upon :1i111 by succession-Thus, each of the two daughters was entitled
    to one-sl\/h share in the property and the remaining properties would go to
E   the adopted son-Hindu law-Mitakshara coparcenary-Devolution of
    interest-Interpretation of statutes-Statutory fiction-Interpretation of

         Stale of Bombay v. l'andurang Vinayak Chaphalkar & Ors.. ( 1953( 4
    SCR 773 and Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum,
F   AIR (1978) SC 1239, relied on.

          East End Dwelling Co. ltd v. Finsbury Borough Council, (1952) Appeal
    Cases 109, referred to.

          Mui/a. Principles on Hindu law, referred to.

G         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4171 of2006.

          From the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.4.2004 of the High Court
    of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 276/
    2004.

H                                        370
                     ANAR DEVI v. PARMESHWARI DEVI                         371
                                     WITH                                        A
       C.A. No. 4172/2006.

     Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Sarad Singhania, Rani Masheshwari
and Pratibha Jain for the Appellants.

       Aruneshwar Gupta, Gen. Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood, Kumar              B
 Kartikay, Shiva Pujan Singh, Ved Pal Shastri and Siddharth Singh for the
 Respondents,

      The Order ofthe Court was delivered by

      C.A. No. 4171 of2006@ S.L.P. (C) No. 15677 of2004:
                                                                                 c
      Heard learned counsel for the parties.

      Leave granted.

       A suit was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer by the respondents
for partition of suit properties claiming two-third share therein. In the plaint, D
it was plaintiffs' clear-cut case that the partition suit was filed for partition
of notional share ofNagar Mal. Undisputedly, the suit properties were ancestral
one in the hands ofNagar Mal, who adopted one Nemi Chand as his son, and
after adoption both of them constituted a Mitakshara coparcenary under Hindu
Law. Further it was undisputed that Nagar Mal died in the year 1989 intestate
in the state of jointness with his adopted son leaving behind him, his adopted E
son Nemi Chand and the plaintiffs, who were his two daughters.

        The trial court by misconstruing the provisions of law, passed an ex-
 parte decree for partition of one-third share of each one of the plaintiffs
 instead of one-sixth share. Against the decree of trial Court, when the matter F
 was taken in appeal, the appellate authority reversed the same after recording
 a finding that the property was ancestral one, but remitted the matter as the
decree was passed ex-parte. Against the order of remand, the matter was
 taken to the Board of Revenue, which reversed the order of remand and
 restored the decree passed by trial Court after recording a finding that each
of the plaintiffs was entitled to one-third share in the suit properties. The said G
judgment has been confirmed in writ by a learned single Judge of the High
Court and the same has been upheld in appeal by the Division Bench. Hence,
this appeal by special leave.

      In order to appreciate the point involved in the present case it would
be useful to refer to the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,   H
    372                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 1956 (in short "the Act"), as it stood prior to its amendment by Hindu
    Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and the same run thus:

             ··s. 6 - Devolution of interest in coparcenary property-When a male
            Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act. having at the time
            of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property. his
B           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 surviving him a female
            relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative, specified
C           in that class who claims, through such female relative, the interest of
            the deceased in Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by
            testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, ·under this
            Act and not by survivorship.

                £r:planation I. For the purposes of this section, the interest of a
D           Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the
            property that would ha1·e 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. Nothing contained in the proviso to this section
E           shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself
            from the coparcenary l:>efore the death of the deceased or any of his
            heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein."

          Reference in this connection may be made to a passage from the most
F authoritative Treatise of Mui/a, Principlfi on Hindu law, Seventeenth Edition,
  page 250 wherein while interpreting Explanation I to Section 6 of the Act,
  the learned author stated that "Explanation I defines the expression 'the interest
  of the deceased in Mitakshara coparcenary property' and incorporates into
  the subject the concept of a notional partition. It is essential to note that this
  notional partition is for the purpose of enabling succession to and computation
G of an interest. which was otherwise liable to devolve by survivorship and for
  the ascertainment of the shares in that interest of the relatives mentioned in
  Class I of the Schedule. Subject to such carving out of the interest of the
  deceased coparcener the other incidents of the coparcenary are left undisturbed
  and the coparcenary can continue without disruption. A statutory fiction which
H treats an imaginary state of affairs as real requires that the consequences and
                     ANAR DEVI v. PARMESHWARI DEVI                          373
incidents of the putative state of affairs must flow from or accompany it as       A
if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed and effect must be given to
the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs."

       The learned author further stated that "the operation of the notional
partition and its inevitable corollaries and incidents is to be only for the
purposes of this section namely, devolution of interest of the deceased in         B
coparcenary property and would not bring about total disruption of the
coparcenary as if there had in fact been a regular partition and severance of
status among all the surviving coparceners."

       According to the learned author, at page 253, the undivided interest "of
the deceased coparcener for the purpose of giving effect to the rule laid down     C
in the proviso, as already pointed out, is to· be ascertained on the footing of
a notional partition as of the date of his death .. The determination of that
share must depend on the number of persons who would have been entitled
to a share in the coparcenary property if. a partition had in fact taken place
immediately before his death and such person would have to be ascertained          D
according to the law of joint family and partition. The rules of Hindu law on
the subject in force at the time of the death of the coparcener must, therefore,
govern the question of ascertainment of the persons who would have been
entitled to a share on the notional partition.''.

      In the case of State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar &             E
Ors., [1953] 4 SCR 773, this Court, after referring to, with approval, the oft-
quoted dictum of Lord.Asquith in East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury
Borough Council, (1952) Appeal Cases 109, has laid down the manner in
which statutory fiction shall be construed and at pages 778 and 779 .observed
thus:-"
                                                                                   F
       When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been
       done, which in fact and truth was not done, the court is entitled and
       bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the
       statutory fiction is to be resorted to and full effect must be given to
       the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion. G
       [Vide Lord Justice James in Ex parte Walton: In re Levy [17 Ch. D.
       746, at p. 756]]. If the purpose of the statutory fiction mentioned in
       section 15 is kept in view, then it follows that the purpose of that
       fiction would be completely defeated if the notification was construed
       in the literal manner in which it has been construed by the High
       Court. In East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Filµbury Borough Council H
    374                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           (1952) A.C. 109, Lord Asquith while dealing with the provi5ions of
            the Town and County Planning Act, 1947, made reference to the
            same principle and observed as follows:-
                "'If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real,
                you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so. also imagine
B               as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative
                state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed
                from or accompanied it. .... The statute says that you must imagine
                a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you
                must cause or pennit your imagination to boggle when it comes
                to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs."
c           The corollary thus of declaring the provisions of section 25 of the
            Bombay General Clauses Act applicable to the repeal of the ordinance
            and of rleeming that ordinance an enactment is that wherever the
            wor ~ ·'ordinance" occurs in the notification, that word has to be read
            as an enactment."
D
        In the case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabui Khandappa
    Magdum, AIR (1978) SC 1239 at page 1243 it has been laid down by this
    Court as under:

           ''What is therefore required to be assumed is that a partition had in
E          fact taken ptace between the deceased and his coparceners immediately
           before his death. That assumption, once made, is irrevocable. In other
           words, the assumption having been made once for the purpose of
           ascertaining the shares of the deceased in the coparcenary property,
           one cannot go back on that assumption and ascertain the share of the
F          heirs without reference to it. The assumption which the statute requires
           to be made that a partition had in fact taken place must permeate the
           entire process of ascertainment of the ultimate share of the heirs,
           through all its stages ... All the consequences which flow from a real
           partition have to be logically worked out, which means that the share
           of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated
G          from one another and had received a share in the partition which had
           taken place during the lifetime of the deceased."

          Thus we hold that according to Section 6 of the Act when a coparcener
    dies leaving behind any female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule
    to the Act or male relative specified in that class claiming through such
H
                        ANAR DEVI v. PARMESHWARI DEVI                         375
    female relative, his undivided interest in the Mitakshara coparcenary property A
    would not devolve upon the surviving coparcener. by survivorship but upon
    his heirs by intestate succession. Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Act provides
    a meci1anism under which undivided interest of a deceased coparcener can be
    ascertained and, i.e., that 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 B
    death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. It
    means for the purposes of finding out undivided interest of a deceased
    coparcener, a notional partition has to be assumed immediately before his
    death and the same shall devolve upon his heirs by succession which would
    obviously include the surviving coparcener who, apart from the devolution of C
    the undivided interest of the deceased upon him by succession, would also
    be entitled to claim his undivided interest in the coparcenary property which
    he could have got in notional partition.

           In the case on hand, notional partition of the suit properties between
    Nagarmal and his adopted son Nemi Chand has to be assumed immediately D
    before the death ofNagannal and that being so Nagar Mal's undivided interest
    in the suit property, which was half; devolved on his death upon his three
    children, i.e., the adopted son Nemi Chand and the two daughters who are
    plaintiffs in equal proportion. Nemi Chand, the adopted son, would get half
    of the entire property which right he acquired on the date of adoption and E
    one third of the ·remaining half which devolved upon him by succession as
    stated above. This being the· position, each of the two plaintiffs was not
    entitled to one-third share in the suit property, but one-sixth and the remaining
    properties would go to the adopted son, Nemi Chand.

           Undisputedly, the suit properties in the hands of Nagar Mal were p



.
    ancestral one in which his son Nemi Chand got interest equal to Nagar Mal
    after his adoption and from the date of adoption, a coparcenary was constituted
    between the father and the adopted son. Upon the death of Nagar Mal, the
<   property being ancestral, the half undivided interest of Nagar Mal therein
    devolved by rule of succession upon his three heirs, including Nemi Chand.
    This being the position each of the daughters would be entitled to one-sixth G
    share in the suit properties and the remaining would go to the heirs of Nemi
    Chand, since deceased.

          Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgments are set aside
    and suit for partition is decreed to the extent of one-sixth share of each of the H
    376                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A two plaintiffs and the defendants, i.e., heirs of Nemi Chand shall be entitled
    to the remaining suit properties. Let a preliminary decree be, accordingly,
    drawn up and steps for preparation of final decree be taken by appointment
    of a pleader commissioner.

           No costs.
B
           C.A. No. 4172 of 2006 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 19015 of 2004:

           Heard learned counsel for the parties.

           Leave granted.
c         In view of the order in C.A. No. 4171 of 2006 above, the appc;al is
    allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and writ petition filed before the
    High Court is dismissed.

           No costs.

    R.P.                                                        Appeals allowed.




                                                                                     ...