Summary of this article
Property devolving on a son under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is separate/self-acquired, not ancestral.
Post-1956, succession follows inheritance, not survivorship, altering the traditional coparcenary principle.
An unregistered sale deed does not convey valid title, even if execution and consideration are proved.
The Bombay High Court recently put quietus to a protracted litigation, largely among family members, involving a vendor, objectors, and a third-party purchaser in relation to a property claimed as ancestral by the objectors and as self-acquired by the purchaser (Arun v. Meena & Ors., Second Appeal No. 455 of 2023).
In this matter, the Court clarified that property inherited by a Hindu male from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“the Act”) constitutes separate property and does not form part of the Joint Hindu Family property.
Brief Facts Of The Case
The litigation arose out of two civil suits. The first suit was instituted by the objectors against the vendor and the purchaser, while the second suit was filed by the purchaser against the objectors and the vendor.
“In the first Regular Civil Suit, the objectors - being the wife and children of the vendor - sought the relief of a permanent injunction restraining the vendor from alienating the suit property in favour of the purchaser. The case of the objectors was that the suit property constituted Joint Hindu Family property and not the separate property of the vendor, and, therefore, the vendor had no authority to sell the same,” says Mayank Arora, partner, Chambers of Bharat Chugh.
Notably, in his response, the vendor admitted the contents of the plaint; however the purchaser contended that the vendor had executed a sale deed on 11.07.2007, agreeing to sell the property for a valuable consideration. The purchaser also averred that the deed was not registered as registration was prevented by the interference of the son of the vendor.
The trial court eventually dismissed the said suit, and being aggrieved by the objectors, preferred the first appeal. The appellate court set aside the original decree and granted an injunction in favour of the objectors and also gave a finding that an agreement of sale does, in fact, exist between the vendor and the purchaser. The objectors and the purchaser, both being aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate court, preferred a second appeal from the said decision of the appellate court.
Subsequently, the purchaser instituted another civil suit against the vendor and the objectors, seeking a declaration of title in his favour and consequential directions for registration of the sale deed, along with a perpetual injunction to protect his peaceful possession. In the alternative, the purchaser also sought a refund of the sale consideration,” says Arora.
This second suit was decreed in favour of the purchaser, and, being aggrieved by the said decree, the objectors preferred an appeal against it as well.
The appellate court affirmed the decree of refund of the sale consideration and held that the suit property is in the nature of an ancestral property.
The objectors and the purchaser both preferred second appeals from the said decision of the appellate court, and the matter came before the Bombay High Court, which decided the above-mentioned four second appeals by a consolidated judgement as the matter related to the same parties and property.
Court Analysis
The court found no reason to interfere with the findings that the sale deed dated 11.07.2007 was, in fact, executed between the parties and that consideration had moved from the purchaser to the vendor in furtherance of the same. The court pointed out that the evidence of the attesting witness, who is the brother of the vendor, clearly establishes the factum of execution of the sale deed dated 11.07.2007. However, the court also observed that since the sale deed has not been registered, it cannot be deemed to be a valid title document in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, relying on Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) Vs. State of Haryana, [(2012)1SCC 656] and Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy, [(2010)8SCC383] wherein it was unequivocally held that an unregistered sale deed is not a valid title document.
Secondly, the court drew from the dictum laid down in the case of Parvati w/o Vishwanath Zangare & Ors. Vs. Rasul [2014(2)MhLJ457] and thereby reaffirmed that the coparceners can seek an injunction to restrain the Karta or coparcener from alienating the joint family property without specifically seeking the relief of partition.
However, upon adverting to the proceedings of the trial courts, wherein the objectors had produced two registered partition deeds dated 22.04.1969 and 11.08.1982, the Court observed that, on the basis of oral evidence and relevant mutation entries, the partition deeds relied upon by the objectors stood duly proved.
“Additionally, the Court observed that the vendor, along with his father and brother, had partitioned the Joint Hindu Family properties pursuant to a registered partition deed dated 22.04.1969. It was further noted that, under the subsequent partition deed dated 11.08.1982, the suit property was allotted to the share of the vendor’s father,” observes Arora.
Upon the partition effected on 11.08.1982, the suit property became the separate property of the vendor’s father. It was only upon his demise that the property devolved upon the vendor by succession in accordance with Sections 8, read with Section 10 and Schedule I of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Therefore, in light of the above facts and circumstances, the court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen [AIR 1986 SC 1753] and held that prior to the commencement of the Act of 1956, the rule of survivorship prevailed wherein each coparcener had a right in the joint family property by birth, and the property was succeeded as per the rules of survivorship and assumed the character of ancestral property.
“However, after the commencement of the Act of 1956, there has been a stark difference in the given proposition of law, whereby the property of the deceased is devolved upon the Class-I legal heirs as per the law of inheritance. The court held that since the father of the vendor admittedly died after commencement of the Act of 1956, and thereby the property succeeded by the son as per Section 8 of the Act of 1956 will be his separate property,” says Arora.
Conclusion
The Court finally concluded that, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property inherited by a Hindu male from his father under Section 8 constitutes separate property and does not form part of the Joint Hindu Family property.
