When in suit for partition property shall not be deemed to be self acquired property?

Succession Laws – Partition – Gift Deed – Validity of – Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 8 –
Appellant/Plaintiff filed suit for partition of properties in favour of her late husband’s share – Preliminary decree
passed holding that in view of ‘A’ schedule property, Plaintiff got 1/5th share, but not in ‘B’ schedule property, since
it is self-acquired property of deceased 1st Defendant – On appeal, Division Bench held that ‘B’ schedule property is
self-acquired property of deceased 1st Defendant – Appeal – Whether Plaintiff entitled to share in ‘B’ schedule
property - Held, deceased 1st Defendant admitted that he received money from Plaintiff’s husband and Plaintiff’s
husband also had share in ancestral property – Further, admitted in another proceeding between parties that he
received specific amount by way of bank draft and cash from Plaintiff’s husband, which utilized by deceased 1
st
Defendant for reconstruction of building in ‘B’ schedule property - Trial Court and First Appellate Court did not
appreciate and re-appreciate evidence in favour of Plaintiff in proper perspective to record finding on her claim for
division of share in her favour in respect of schedule ‘B’ property – Since concurrent finding by Trial Court and
First Appellate Court erroneous and liable to be set aside, gift deed of schedule ‘B’ property executed by deceased
1st Defendant in favour of 2
nd Defendant during pendency of proceedings invalid – Also, since deceased 1st
Defendant died during pendency of proceedings, Section 8 will come into operation in respect of ‘B’ schedule
property, even if same considered to be self-acquired property of deceased 1st Defendant- For such reason also,
Plaintiff entitled to 1/4th share in schedule “B” property – 1/4th share in schedule “B” property equally assigned to
Plaintiff and Defendants – Impugned judgments with regard to ‘B’ schedule property by Trial Court and First
Appellate Court set aside – Appeal allowed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2820 OF 2015
KIRPAL KAUR ………APPELLANT
Vs.
JITENDER PAL SINGH & ORS. ……RESPONDENTS
Dated; July 14, 2015
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Citation;AIR 2015 SC2967

Print Page

Whether daughter in law can claim right in self acquired property of father in law under domestic violence Act?

Section 4 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
provides non obstante clause. In terms of which any obligation on
the part of in-laws in terms of an rule or interpretation of Hindu Law
or custom or usage as part of law before the commencement of the
Act are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause in terms
of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, the provisions of the Act alone are
applicable and anything and any liability in respect of maintenance of
daughter-in-law on death of son cannot be fastened from the selfacquired
property of the parents.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.24168 of 2014
Date of Decision: 6.04.2015
Sangeeta

Vs
Om Parkash Balyan and another

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH


RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
Citation; 2015 CRLJ 2635

Print Page

Whether gift of self acquired immovable property as mentioned in decree requires registration?

 The terms of the family settlement are not on record. As mentioned above, the family settlement could relate to the ancestral as well as self- acquired property of Bhagwana or only the ancestral property. It appears that it related only to the ancestral property and not the self-acquired property (hence the reference to a hibba). The decree relating to 32 kanals of land did not require compulsory registration, as mentioned above. However, the self acquired property of Bhagwana that is 20 kanals, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Bhoop Singh the gift of 20 kanals of land by Bhagwana in favour of Ram Singh, notwithstanding the decree in the first suit, requires compulsory registration since it created, for the first time, right, title or interest in immovable property of a value greater than Rs.100/- in favour of Ram Singh.

Supreme Court of India

Phool Patti And Anr vs Ram Singh(Dead)Through Lrs. & Anr on 6 January, 2015

Bench: Madan B. Lokur, C. Nagappan

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2005    

Citation;2015(4)MhLJ626(SC),2015MPLJ344(SC),

2015(1)PLJR364,(2015)3SCC164,                 

Print Page

Whether oral relinquishment of self acquired property is valid?

There is plaintiff's own admission that the suit property was self-acquired property of Pithuji. Since it was self-acquired property of Pithuji it was certainly not a joint family property. If it was not a joint family property, Pithuji could not relinquish/surrender the property in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 without registered instrument at all. The law is well settled that a co-parcener or a sharer in joint family property can surrender his share orally at the time of partition. In a decision cited by the leaned counsel for the appellant, reported in 1964 Mh.L.J.736 (Ramdas Chimna v. Pralhadj Deorao), it is held that oral relinquishment of share in a joint family property is valid. As; said earlier, the plaintiff's case is of oral surrender and that too of self-acquired property. Such alleged surrender, if any, of self acquired property was therefore invalid and Pithuji continued to be the owner and no title under the alleged surrender ever vested in the plaintiff or defendant No. 2.

“If an immovable property is the self acquired property then it can be transferred only by way of registered instrument and cannot be transferred by oral agreement but if it is a joint family property then the co-sharer can surrender/relinquish his share orally at the time of partition.”

Bombay High Court

Shri Gangadhar Pandhari Harde vs Uttam S/O Pandhari Harde And ... on 14 January, 2008

Equivalent citations: 2008 (2) BomCR 1, 2008 (110) Bom L R 489, 2008 (2) MhLj 334

Bench: C Pangarkar

Print Page

Whether case can be remanded for proper identification of self acquired and ancestral property?

But, in respect of other points raised before me, suffice it to say that the appellate Court, even though, found that some of the properties were individual and self-acquired properties of Palayam, nevertheless decreed the suit in its entirety without excluding such of those properties. The decree thus granted cannot be sustained. The correctness or otherwise of the legality of the claim of the defendants to include the properties of Pattammal, should also be examined. With the result, the appeal requires to be remanded to the appellate Court for rendering proper decision on all aspects including proper identification of the self-acquired properties of Palayam and the ancestral properties and all other points arising for consideration.

Madras High Court

Chinnammal And 8 Others vs Elumalai And 4 Others on 14 January, 2000

Equivalent citations: 2000 (2) CTC 214, II (2000) DMC 278

Bench: K Sivasubramaniam

Print Page