Supreme Court: Child Adopted By Widow After Death Of Govt. Employee Not Entitled To Family Pension

 It may also be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in Poonamal v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0359/1985 : (1985) 3 SCC 345, wherein the purpose for which 'family pension' is granted, was highlighted by this Court in the following words:

Family pension came to be conceptualised in the year 1950. When a Government servant die in harness or soon after retirement, in the traditional Indian family on the death of the only earning member, the widow or the minor children were not only rendered orphans but faced more often destitution and starvation. Traditionally speaking the widow was hardly in a position to obtain gainful employment. She suffered the most in as much as she was deprived of the companionship of the husband and also became economically orphaned. As a measure of socioeconomic justice family pension scheme was devise to help the widows tie over the crisis and till the minor children attain majority to extend them some succour. This appeared to be the underlying motivation in devising the family pension scheme. It was liberalised from time to time. {Para 12}

It is evident from the passage quoted above that family pension was devised as a means to help the dependents of the deceased government servant tide over the crisis and to extend to them some succour. Therefore, the definition of the term 'family' cannot be extended to include those persons who were not even dependents of the government servant, at the time of his death.

12.1.  In the present case, the heirs listed Under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules are the immediate dependents of the deceased government servant. Therefore, persons who were not dependant on the government servant prior to his death cannot be held to be included in the definition of 'family' Under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 386 of 2023 

Decided On: 17.01.2023

Ram Shridhar Chimurkar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0041/2023.

Print Page

Is a Child Adopted By Widow After the Death Of a Government Employee Entitled To Family Pension?

It is necessary that the scope of the benefit of family pension be restricted only to sons or daughters legally adopted by the government servant, during his/her lifetime. The definition of 'family' is narrowly worded under the CCS (Pension) Rules, in the specific context of the entitlement to 'family pension' and in relation to the government servant. Therefore, the word "adoption" in Rule 54(14)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, in the context of grant of family pension, must be restricted to an adoption made by a government servant during his/her lifetime and must not be extended to a case of adoption made by a surviving spouse of the government servant after his/her death. This is because the object of the provision is to lend succour to a son till he attains the age of twenty-five years and unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter; similarly to the adopted son or unmarried adopted daughter when such an adoption had been made by the government servant during his/her lifetime.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 386 of 2023 

Ram Shridhar Chimurkar Vs.  Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Decided On: 17.01.2023.

Citation: MANU/SC/0041/2023

Print Page

Supreme Court: Joint Family In DV Act Mean Members Live Together As Family & Not As Understood In Hindu Law

  In our view, the D.V. Act is a piece of Civil Code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background for a more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship. Therefore, the expression 'joint family' cannot mean as understood in Hindu Law. Thus, the expression 'family members living together as a joint family', means the members living jointly as a family. In such an interpretation, even a girl child/children who is/are cared for as foster children also have a right to live in a shared household and are conferred with the right Under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the D.V. Act. When such a girl child or woman becomes an aggrieved person, the protection of Sub-section (2) of Section 17 comes into play. {Para 36}

 43. Further, the expression 'family members living together as a joint family' is not relatable only to relationship through consanguinity, marriage or adoption. As observed above, the expression 'joint family' does not mean a joint family as understood in Hindu Law. It would mean persons living together jointly as a family. It would include not only family members living together when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or adoption but also those persons who are living together or jointly as a joint family such as foster children who live with other members who are related by consanguinity, marriage or by adoption. Therefore, when any woman is in a domestic relationship as discussed above, is subjected to any act of domestic violence and becomes an aggrieved person, she is entitled to avail the remedies under the D.V. Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022

Prabha Tyagi Vs.  Kamlesh Devi

Print Page

Whether family of son will inherit property of father if son murders his father?

 Therefore, once it is held that a person who has murdered his father or a person from whom he wants to inherit, stands totally disqualified. Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act makes it further clear that if any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under this Act, it shall be deemed as if such person had died before the intestate. That shows that a person who has murdered a person through whom he wants to inherit the property stands disqualified on that account. That means he will be deemed to have predeceased him. The effect of Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is that a murderer is totally disqualified to succeed to the estate of deceased. The framers of the Act in the objects and reasons have made a reference to the decision of the Privy Council that the murderer is not to be regarded as the stock of a fresh line of descent but should be regarded as non-existent. That means that a person who is guilty of committing the murder cannot be treated to have any relationship whatsoever with deceased's estate.

24. Now, adverting to the facts of the present case, the effect of Sections 25 and 27 is that the respondent No.1 cannot inherit any property of his father as he has murdered him on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience and the fresh stock of his line of descent ceased to exist in that case. Once the son is totally disinherited then his whole stock stands disinherited i.e. wife or son. The defendant-respondent No.1 son himself is totally disqualified by virtue of Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act and as such the wife can have no better claim in the property of the deceased, Ramasamy Konar.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4838 of 1999

Decided On: 06.05.2005

 Vellikannu Vs.  R. Singaperumal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhan and A.K. Mathur, JJ.

Print Page

Whether father can enter into agreement of sale in respect of ancestral property?

Moreover, what holds good in respect of the family settlement, holds good even moreso with regard to an agreement of sale, i.e. that an agreement of sale also could not have been entered into by Rohtash if the property was ancestral property in his hands, his son and the other two children having acquired a right in such property by birth.Of course, if due consideration was received by Rohtash, in lieu of such property, then such consideration may have been deemed to be ancestral property, provided the ancestral land was sold for the benefit of his family.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-1725-2016 (O&M)

Decided On: 02.06.2017

 Amrit Lal Vs.Savitri and Ors.

Print Page

When person residing with deceased tenant will acquire tenancy rights?

 This Court in Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. The Nagpur Handloom Cloth Market Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/0309/1962 : AIR (1963) SC 1192 while interpreting the word "Family" observed as under:

"But the expression 'family' has according to the contest in which it occurs, a variable connotation. It does not in the setting of the rules postulate the existence of relationship either of blood or by marriage between the persons residing in the tenement Even a single person may be regarded as a family, and a master and servant would also be so regarded."

In the matter of Pandurang Narayan Mantri vs. Anant Shankarrao Samel MANU/MH/0249/1982 : AIR 1982 BOM. 115 the Court held that because the defendant and his wife were residing with the aged tenant to look after her in her old age and the defendants wife was related to the tenant being niece of the tenant-husband, the defendant and his wife and tenant were living as one family with the tenant defraying all the family expenses including rent payable by the defendant, the court held that on tenant's death, the defendants acquired tenancy rights by virtue of Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act.

36. Therefore, it emerges from all the judgments on this issue that to be called a 'family member', if you are not the legal heir of the tenant, facts and evidence have to be considered to see whether defendant No. 2 actually resided in the tenanted premises with the original tenant and he lived with the original tenant as a member of the family.

A person to be entitled to protection of the benefits of Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, has not only to prove that he is a member of the family but he resided with the original tenant in the suit premises as a member of the family.

Held, Applicant resided with original tenant at time of death of original tenant as member of family also could not be accepted - From perusal on record evidence relation of Applicant with deceased, it was clear that he was not in blood relation with deceased original tenant - Applicant not produced any ration card to indicate that he and his wife were staying on date of death of deceased original tenant along with him - Moreover, electricity bills produced by him for period were in name of deceased original tenant, however, they were not in name of Applicant merely because he was in possession of electricity bills - Application dismissed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 135 of 2006 and Civil Application No. 447 of 2013 in Civil Revision Application No. 135 of 2006

Decided On: 07.04.2015

Narendra Jayantilal Desai

Vs.

Nirmala Maganlal Doshi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.R. Shriram, J.

Citation: 2015 Bom Rent Cases 222

Print Page

What is definition of family for purpose of family arrangement?

Reliance was also placed upon judgment in the case of Kale v. Deputy Director of ConsolidationMANU/SC/0529/1976 : (1976) 3 SCC 119 to highlight the nature, effect and value of family arrangement under the Hindu Law. All the three Judges deciding this case were agreed on the relevant proposition that the object of family arrangement is to sink their differences and disputes and resolve their conflicting claims to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family. Paragraph 9 of the judgment deserves full respect and is extracted hereinafter:

9. Before dealing with the respective contentions put forward by the parties, we would like to discuss in general the effect and value of family arrangements entered into between the parties with a view to resolving disputes once for all. By virtue of a family settlement or arrangement members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family. The family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves and would be enforced if honestly made. In this connection,Kerr in his valuable treatise Kerr on Fraud at p.364 makes the following pertinent observations regarding the nature of the family arrangement which may be extracted thus:

The principles which apply to the case of ordinary compromise between strangers do not equally apply to the case of compromises in the nature of family arrangements. Family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves, and will be enforced if honestly made, although they have not been meant as a compromise, but have proceeded from an error of all parties originating in mistake or ignorance of fact as to what their rights actually are, or of the points on which their rights actually depend.

The object of the arrangement is to protect the family from long-drawn litigation or perpetual strifes which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family. Today when we are striving to build up an egalitarian society and are trying for a complete reconstruction of the society, to maintain and uphold the unity and homogeneity of the family which ultimately results in the unification of the society and, therefore, of the entire country, is the prime need of the hour. A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the various contenders so as to achieve as equal distribution of wealth instead of concentrating the same in the hands of a few is undoubtedly a milestone in the administration of social justice. That is why the term 'family' has to be understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes successionis so that future disputes are sealed for ever and the family instead of fighting claims inter se and wasting time, money and energy on such fruitless or futile litigation is able to devote its attention to more constructive work in the larger interest of the country. The courts have, therefore, leaned in favour of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds. Where the courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or a formal defect the rule of estoppel is pressed into service and is applied to shut out plea of the person who being a party to family arrangement seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself enjoyed some material benefits. The law in England on this point is almost the same. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 17, Third Edition, at pp. 215-216, the following apt observations regarding the essentials of the family settlement and the principles governing the existence of the same are made:

A family arrangement is an agreement between members of the same family, intended to be generally or reasonably for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honour.

The agreement may be implied from a long course of dealing, but it is more usual to embody or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which the term 'family arrangement' is applied.

Family arrangements are governed by principles which are not applicable to dealings between strangers. The court, when deciding the rights of parties under family arrangements or claims to upset such arrangements, considers what in the broadest view of the matter is most for the interest of families, and has regard to considerations which, in dealing with transactions between persons not members of the same family, would not be taken into account. Matters which would be fatal to the validity of similar transactions between strangers are not objections to the binding effect of family arrangements.

The legal principles enunciated above have not been disputed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 3687 of 2006, 503 of 2001 and 2763 of 2002

Decided On: 01.12.2015

Rajni Sanghi Vs. Western Indian State Motors Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikramajit Sen and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.

Citation:(2015) 16 SCC 631

Print Page

Whether Married Daughter who Has Legal Right Of Residence In Building Can Seek Tenant’s Eviction?

 Coming to the second question first, in our
opinion, its answer depends upon the proper

interpretation of the definition of the word "family" as
defined in Section 3(g) of the Act. It reads as under:
“3(g) “Family”, in relation to a landlord or
tenant of a building, means, his or her-
(i) spouse;
(ii) male lineal descendants;
(iii) such parents, grandparents and any
unmarried or widowed or divorced or
judicially separated daughter or
daughter of a male lineal descendant, as
may have been normally residing with
him or her,
and includes, in relation to a landlord, any
female having a legal right of residence in
that building;”
25) Perusal of the afore-quoted definition would go to
show that family in relation to landlord or tenant of a
building would include (1) spouse (2) male lineal
descendants (3) such parents, grandparents,
unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially
separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal
descendant as may have been residing with the
landlord. The definition further says, "Family”
includes in relation to landlord, any female having a

legal right of residence in that building.
26) The inclusive part of the definition, which is
enacted only for the benefit of “female” in relation to
the landlord, adds one more category of person in
addition to those specified in clauses (i) to (iii), namely,
“any female having a legal right of residence in that
building”.
27) A fortiori, any female, if she is having a legal right
of residence in the building, is also included in the
definition of “family” in relation to landlord regardless
of the fact whether she is married or not. In other
words, in order to claim the benefit of expression
"family", a female must have a "legal right of residence"
in the building. Such female would then be entitled to
seek eviction of the tenant from such building for her
need.
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 9727 OF 2016
 
Gulshera Khanam  Vs Aftab Ahmad 
Dated:September 27, 2016
Citation: 2016 SCCONLINESC1001,(2016) 9 SCC414

Print Page

Include divorced daughter within definition of Family for Compassionate Appointments: Allahabad HC to Govt

THE ALLAHABAD High Court has directed the Principal Secretary (Law) to take necessary steps within four months so that a “divorced daughter” can be included in the definition of “family” with respect to the rules regarding compassionate appointments in the event of death of a government employee while on duty.

As of now, only “unmarried daughters” and “widowed daughters” are included in the definition of “family” insofar as compassionate appointment is concerned.
A single-judge bench of Justice B Amit Sthalekar passed the order in this regard on November 18 while hearing a petition filed by one Roobi Mansoori whose father, a class IV employee in the Sales Tax Department and posted in Allahabad, had passed away in 2012.

Print Page

When family pension can be paid to more than one member of family?

 The counsel for the petitioner Smt. Anita has laid considerable emphasis on Rule 54(8) of the CCS (Pension) Rules which bars payment of pension to more than one member of the family at the same time except in the situations provided for in Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54. Undoubtedly the situation as is arising in the present case is not covered by Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54. However Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54 does contemplate children from different wives and provides for payment of separate pension to them.

Though the Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi has not discussed the said Rules but I am of the opinion that the Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54, in the light of the dicta of the Supreme Court cannot be given a restricted meaning and the bar in Sub-rule (8) of Rule 54 to payment of pension to more than one member of the family cannot be interpreted so as to defeat the provisions of other laws i.e. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 Date of decision: 30th July, 2012 
 REVIEW PETITION NO.290/2011 IN W.P.(C) NO.8241/2009 

SMT. ANITA V UNION OF INDIA

CORAM :- MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 
Citation;III(2012)DMC412;192 (2012) DLT449

Print Page

Whether contract for sell of property can be specifically enforced against family including minors?

It is settled law that the manager of a joint Hindu family which includes minors can enter into a contract for the sale or purchase of immovable property and the contract can be specifically enforced against the family including the minors provided the transaction is for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR

Second Appeal No. 534 of 1946

Decided On: 10.03.1952

Appellants: S.K. Buty
Vs.
Respondent: Shriram Hari Tambe

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Deo, J.

Citation: AIR1954Nag65, [1953]ILR Nag57

Print Page