VISHWAMBHAR NAMDEV NIKAM AND ANOTHER v. SOW. SUNANDA MAHESHANKAR SURYAWANSHI AND OTHERS
Discusses coparcenary rights, interpretation of Hindu Succession Act, and principles of civil procedure.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:23638
Decision Date: 03-09-2025
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; General Principles of Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment discusses Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, concerning the rejection of a plaint. The revision application was directed against an order refusing to reject the plaint under this provision. The applicants/defendants contended that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable, and the court considered whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action. Section 54 CPC is mentioned in the context of a prayer in the plaint for a decree to be sent to the collector for partition and possession.
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: The judgment extensively discusses Section 6 of the Act, particularly the amended provision regarding the rights of daughters in coparcenary property. The court analyzes Section 6(1) to determine whether a granddaughter can become a coparcener in her own right like a son. The judgment refers to the Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma case to clarify the concept of coparcenary. Section 14 of the Act is also mentioned, concerning a female Hindu becoming the absolute owner of property. The court notes that the plaintiff's mother, defendant No. 1, would become the absolute owner of the property once allotted a share, impacting the plaintiff's claim.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the concept of coparcenary property, distinguishing between unobstructed and obstructed heritage. It refers to Mulla on Hindu Law's explanation of these concepts. The judgment also touches upon the principle of locus standi, stating that the plaintiff lacks locus standi to file the suit. The concept of cause of action is also discussed, with the court finding that the cause of action shown in the plaint is illusory. The judgment also discusses the concept of ancestral property and how it is inherited, referencing Muhammad Husain Khan and others Vs. Kishva Nandan Sahai; AIR 1937 PC 233. The judgment also discusses the concept of unobstructed and obstructed heritage, which are again explained by Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma's judgment. Relevant extract is paragraph No.48.
🔒 For Members Only