LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws. This blog is only for information but not for legal opinions

Just for legal information but not form as legal opinion

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Fair Price Shop Dealership – Compassionate/Dependent Quota – Exclusion of married daughter from definition of “family” – Constitutional validity. Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of “family” for the purpose of allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota, solely on the basis of marital status, is constitutionally impermissible. Dependency, financial need, residence and ability to run the dealership are the relevant considerations. Marital status bears no rational nexus with the object of the scheme. Paras 18, 19, 22,

 

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – Articles 14, 15(1), 21 and 39(a) – Fair Price Shop Dealership – Compassionate/Dependent Quota – Exclusion of married daughter from definition of “family” – Constitutional validity.

Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of “family” for the purpose of allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota, solely on the basis of marital status, is constitutionally impermissible. Dependency, financial need, residence and ability to run the dealership are the relevant considerations. Marital status bears no rational nexus with the object of the scheme. Paras 18, 19, 22, 23.

Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Married daughter excluded while married son included – Gender stereotype – Invalid classification.

A classification which treats a married daughter differently from a married son and proceeds on the assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to belong to her parental family is founded upon gender stereotypes and historical notions of inequality. Such classification lacks an intelligible differentia having rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. Paras 19, 20, 23.

Dependency – Question of fact – Cannot be determined solely by marital status.

Dependency is a factual issue which must be determined on the basis of actual circumstances. It cannot be conclusively presumed that a married daughter is not dependent upon her parents merely because she is married. Equally, inclusion of a son cannot automatically establish dependency. Para 19.

Compassionate/Dependent Allotment Scheme – Object of scheme.

The purpose of allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota is not to create a right of inheritance or succession in the dealership but to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of the deceased dealer and to ensure continuity of the public distribution system. Paras 15, 22.

Local Residence Requirement – Married daughter – Blanket exclusion impermissible.

Whether a married daughter satisfies the requirement of local residence is a matter to be determined on the facts of each case. A blanket exclusion of all married daughters on the speculative assumption that they necessarily reside in their matrimonial homes is constitutionally unsustainable. Para 21.

Doctrine of Purposive Construction – Welfare legislation – Interpretation consistent with constitutional values.

Where literal interpretation of a provision produces a result inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination, the Court must adopt a purposive interpretation which advances the object of the scheme and avoids arbitrary or unjust consequences. Paras 24, 25.

Purposive Interpretation – Expression ‘unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters’ – Inclusion of married daughters.

The expression “unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters” occurring in the definition of family is illustrative and not exhaustive. In the context of a welfare-oriented scheme, the expression must be construed to include married daughters who establish dependency and satisfy all other eligibility requirements. Paras 25, 26.

Welfare Schemes – Constitutional Interpretation – Gender Equality.

Welfare schemes must be interpreted in a manner consistent with constitutional commitments to substantive equality and social justice. Marital status cannot constitute a valid ground to deny benefits to an otherwise eligible daughter where dependency remains established. Paras 14, 23, 25, 27.

Public Distribution System – Fair Price Shop – Married daughter residing with deceased dealer and assisting in shop operations – Entitlement.

Where a married daughter continued to reside with her mother even after marriage, actively assisted in operating the fair price shop, remained dependent upon the family and assumed responsibility of maintaining other dependent sisters after the mother's death, rejection of her claim solely on the ground of marriage was arbitrary and illegal. Paras 28, 29.

Constitutional Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Gender-based presumptions.

State action founded upon presumptions that a married daughter automatically ceases to be part of her parental family and loses all dependency upon it is manifestly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees of equality. Paras 19, 20, 23.

Ratio Decidendi

For the purpose of allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota, dependency and fulfilment of eligibility conditions are the governing considerations. Exclusion of a married daughter solely on the basis of marital status is founded upon impermissible gender stereotypes, violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution and frustrates the object of the welfare scheme. The expression “daughter” in Clause 2(p) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016 includes a married daughter who establishes dependency, local residence and satisfies other prescribed eligibility conditions. Paras 18–26.

Principles of Law Declared

  1. Marital status is not a valid criterion to determine dependency. Para 19.
  2. Married daughters cannot be excluded from welfare benefits solely because of marriage. Paras 20, 23.
  3. Dependency is a factual issue requiring individual determination. Paras 19, 21.
  4. Welfare schemes must be interpreted consistently with Articles 14 and 15. Paras 14, 24, 25.
  5. Purposive interpretation must prevail where literal interpretation produces unconstitutional results. Paras 24, 25.
  6. The expression “daughter” includes married daughters if dependency and other eligibility conditions are established. Paras 25, 26.

Cases Referred

  1. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar – relied upon – Para 17.
  2. Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar – relied upon – Para 17.
  3. Shayara Bano v. Union of India – referred – Para 17.
  4. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India – referred – Para 17.
  5. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India – referred – Para 17.
  6. Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishan Lulla – relied upon – Para 24.
  7. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. – approved – Para 27.
  8. Saida Begum v. State of U.P. – overruled – Para 27.
  9. Smt. Kusumlata v. State of U.P. – overruled – Para 27.

Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2025, decided on 02-06-2026 (Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.). 

Posted by at

Development Agreement – Minor’s undivided share in land – Exchange for built-up area and monetary consideration – Whether beneficial. Where the minor held only an undivided share in jointly owned undeveloped land and the proposed development agreement entitled him to a share in a constructed residential flat together with monetary consideration, such arrangement constituted a tangible, enforceable and beneficial improvement over a passive and difficult-to-enjoy ownership interest. Paras 15, 16.

 

HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 – Section 8 – Permission to alienate minor's immovable property – Nature and scope of judicial scrutiny.

Section 8 embodies an ex ante protective mechanism requiring prior judicial scrutiny before a natural guardian alienates a minor’s immovable property. The provision seeks to balance managerial powers of the guardian with judicial oversight to ensure that the welfare and proprietary interests of the minor remain paramount. Paras 6, 7, 14.

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 8(4) – “Necessity or evident advantage to the minor” – Meaning.

While considering an application under Section 8(2), the Court must determine whether the proposed transaction is necessary or demonstrably beneficial to the minor. The test is not the convenience of adult co-owners or guardian but whether the transaction secures a tangible, measurable and enforceable benefit to the minor. Paras 7, 14.

Minor’s Property – Natural guardian – Fiduciary capacity.

A natural guardian does not possess absolute authority over a minor’s property. The guardian holds the property in a fiduciary capacity and any proposed alienation must be justified by reference to the welfare, protection and advancement of the minor's interests. Paras 7, 14.

Doctrine of Parens Patriae – Judicial oversight of minor's property – Welfare principle.

The requirement of prior court permission under Section 8 is founded upon the doctrine of parens patriae. Courts act as protectors of vulnerable persons and are duty-bound to independently examine whether a proposed transaction safeguards the present and future interests of the minor. Paras 9–12, 14.

Minor’s Property – Court approval – Guardian’s consent not conclusive.

Even where the guardian consents to a transaction, the Court must undertake an independent assessment of the advantages and risks involved. Judicial approval cannot be granted merely on the basis of familial consensus and must be based upon the welfare and best interests of the minor. Para 14.

Development Agreement – Minor’s undivided share in land – Exchange for built-up area and monetary consideration – Whether beneficial.

Where the minor held only an undivided share in jointly owned undeveloped land and the proposed development agreement entitled him to a share in a constructed residential flat together with monetary consideration, such arrangement constituted a tangible, enforceable and beneficial improvement over a passive and difficult-to-enjoy ownership interest. Paras 15, 16.

Minor’s Welfare – Comparison between undeveloped land and developed property.

An undivided share in undeveloped land may remain merely a notional interest yielding little practical benefit. Conversion of such interest into a combination of residential property and liquid monetary assets may enhance the welfare of the minor by providing security, utility, liquidity and future economic advantage. Para 16.

Section 8 HMGA – Assessment of benefit to minor – Fact-specific exercise.

Whether a transaction involving a minor’s property is advantageous cannot be determined through any rigid formula. The determination must be made on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case after evaluating the relative benefits and disadvantages of the proposed arrangement. Para 16.

Minor's Property – Rights of adult co-owners – Reconciliation of competing interests.

While protecting the minor’s share, the Court must also recognise that adult co-owners possess legitimate rights to derive reasonable economic benefit from the property. Judicial scrutiny must reconcile both interests without compromising the minor’s security and future proprietary rights. Para 14.

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 8 – Development Agreement approved subject to safeguards.

Permission to act upon a development agreement involving a minor’s share may be granted subject to protective conditions, including deposit of monetary consideration in a nationalised bank till the minor attains majority, restriction on alteration of the development agreement without court approval, and requirement of court permission before any sale of the minor’s share. Para 18.

Property Law – Unauthorized alienation by guardian – Principles reiterated.

An alienation by a natural guardian without prior permission under Section 8(2) is not void ab initio but voidable at the instance of the minor. The right to avoid such transaction accrues upon attainment of majority and must be exercised within the prescribed period of limitation. Para 8.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act acts as parens patriae and must independently assess whether the proposed alienation of a minor’s immovable property is necessary or evidently advantageous to the minor. Where an undivided interest in undeveloped land is proposed to be converted into a definite share in a constructed residential unit together with monetary consideration and appropriate safeguards are imposed, such transaction may constitute an evident advantage to the minor warranting judicial approval. Paras 14–18.

Principles Summarised by the Supreme Court

The Court summarised the following settled principles regarding Section 8 HMGA:

  1. Prior court permission is a statutory safeguard against alienation of a minor’s immovable property. Para 8.
  2. Unauthorized alienation is voidable, not void. Para 8.
  3. Right of avoidance accrues upon majority. Para 8.
  4. Avoidance need not always be through a formal declaratory suit. Para 8.
  5. Recovery and title claims depend upon prior avoidance of the transaction. Para 8.
  6. Section 8 applies to separate property and not to valid alienation of undivided coparcenary property. Para 8.
  7. Welfare and benefit of the minor remain the governing consideration. Para 8.
  8. The provision balances protection of minors with certainty of property transactions. Para 8.

Cases Referred

  1. Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan – relied upon – Para 8.
  2. Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma v. Gopalkrishnan Nair – relied upon – Para 8.
  3. K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma – relied upon – Para 8.
  4. Murugan v. Kesava Gounder – relied upon – Para 8.
  5. Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar – relied upon – Para 8.
  6. G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer – referred – Para 8.
  7. Hunooman Persaud Panday v. Mussumat Babooee Munraj Koonweree – referred – Para 14.
  8. Annie Besant v. G. Narayaniah – referred – Para 10.
  9. McKee v. McKee – referred – Para 10.

Shephali Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.25053 of 2025, decided on 03-06-2026 (Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.).

Posted by at

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Mental Cruelty – Persistent denial of sexual relations without reasonable cause – Ground for divorce. Persistent refusal of sexual intercourse and denial of conjugal relations without any justifiable reason strikes at the foundation of marital life and constitutes mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Where the wife continuously denied sexual relations and the parties lived separately even during the brief period of cohabitation, grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty was justified. Paras 18, 19.

 

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Mental Cruelty – Persistent denial of sexual relations without reasonable cause – Ground for divorce.

Persistent refusal of sexual intercourse and denial of conjugal relations without any justifiable reason strikes at the foundation of marital life and constitutes mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Where the wife continuously denied sexual relations and the parties lived separately even during the brief period of cohabitation, grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty was justified. Paras 18, 19.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Mental Cruelty – Long period of separation – Relevant consideration.

Long and continuous separation between spouses, resulting in complete emotional alienation and absence of marital companionship, may itself amount to mental cruelty. When matrimonial ties have become a mere legal fiction and there is no possibility of restoration of cohabitation, continuation of such relationship may amount to cruelty to both parties. Paras 16, 24, 25, 26.

Marriage – Conjugal Rights and Conjugal Duties – Reciprocal obligations of spouses.

Marriage is not merely a bundle of enforceable rights but a partnership founded upon mutual respect, emotional support, fidelity, companionship and shared responsibility. Conjugal rights cannot be claimed while abandoning corresponding matrimonial duties. Persistent withdrawal from the foundational obligations of marriage may constitute mental cruelty. Para 22.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Appellate Court – Consideration of subsequent events.

An appellate court is entitled to take into consideration subsequent events occurring during pendency of litigation, including prolonged separation, cessation of cohabitation, failure of reconciliation efforts and conduct of parties, while determining whether cruelty stands established. Appeal being a continuation of the original proceedings, such subsequent developments may support or negate the pleaded matrimonial ground. Para 25.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Desertion not specifically pleaded – Long separation and continued non-cohabitation – Relevance.

Even where statutory desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) is not specifically pleaded, prolonged separation, absence of cohabitation and failure of both parties to make efforts for reunion may be considered while evaluating mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia). Paras 21, 25, 27, 28.

Marriage – Mutual failure to accommodate each other – Mental Cruelty.

Where spouses hold irreconcilable views regarding matrimonial life and refuse to accommodate each other over a prolonged period, such conduct itself may amount to cruelty. In matrimonial disputes, the Court is not concerned with determining which spouse is correct; the focus is whether the conduct and incompatibility have rendered continuation of marriage impossible. Para 23.

Article 142 of the Constitution – Divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Scope.

The Supreme Court, in exercise of powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, may dissolve a marriage where it is satisfied that the matrimonial bond has completely failed, reconciliation is impossible, cohabitation has ceased for a sufficiently long period and continuation of the legal relationship would serve no useful purpose. Paras 29, 32, 34, 37.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Factors for consideration.

Relevant factors include duration of cohabitation, length of separation, attempts at reconciliation, mediation efforts, emotional alienation, pendency of litigation, existence of children, financial dependence and overall possibility of restoring matrimonial life. Paras 13, 30, 32.

Article 142 – Dissolution of marriage – Parties living separately for more than fifteen years – No children – Both financially independent.

Where spouses cohabited only for a few months, lived separately for more than fifteen years, mediation failed, there was no possibility of reunion, no children were born from the wedlock and both parties were financially independent professionals, the marriage was held to have broken down irretrievably warranting dissolution under Article 142. Paras 13, 30, 34, 35, 37.

Matrimonial Litigation – Long pendency – Continuation of marriage merely on paper – Undesirable.

Prolonged matrimonial litigation perpetuates a dead relationship and results in psychological, emotional and social stagnation. Courts should not permit parties to remain trapped indefinitely in a marriage which has ceased to exist in substance and reality. Para 36.

Ratio Decidendi

Persistent denial of conjugal relations, prolonged separation, absence of cohabitation, failure of reconciliation efforts and complete emotional breakdown of the marital relationship constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Additionally, where parties have lived apart for over fifteen years and the marriage has become emotionally dead and beyond salvage, the Supreme Court may invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown in order to do complete justice between the parties. Paras 18–19, 24–30, 32–37.


Posted by at

Arbitration – Limitation – Dismissal of application under Section 33 – Whether benefit of Section 34(3) lost – No. The fact that an application under Section 33 is eventually dismissed or found without merit does not deprive a party of the benefit available under Section 34(3). The commencement of limitation depends upon disposal of the Section 33 proceedings and not upon their outcome. Paras 13, 15.

 advocatemmmohan


ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 – Sections 33 and 34(3) – Limitation for application to set aside arbitral award – Starting point of limitation where application under Section 33 is filed.

Where a request under Section 33 is made and entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, limitation under Section 34(3) for filing an application to set aside the award commences from the date on which such request is disposed of by the Tribunal and not from the date of the original award. Paras 13, 14, 18.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34(3) – Interpretation of statutory limitation provision – Court cannot add words to statute.

Section 34(3) does not distinguish between applications under Section 33 which are allowed, dismissed, maintainable or otherwise. Where the legislature has not imposed any such restriction, the Court cannot read into the provision a condition that only a maintainable or successful application under Section 33 would postpone commencement of limitation. Para 13.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 33 – Formal invocation of jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Effect on limitation under Section 34(3).

For the purpose of Section 34(3), the relevant consideration is whether the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 33 has been formally invoked and proceedings remained pending before the Tribunal. The ultimate success or failure of the application is immaterial. Paras 14, 15.

Arbitration – Limitation – Pendency of proceedings under Section 33 – Parties cannot be compelled to simultaneously pursue remedy under Section 34.

Once proceedings under Section 33 are pending, the award remains subject to the limited jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal for correction, interpretation or supplementation. Parties cannot be compelled to institute proceedings under Section 34 merely by way of abundant caution during pendency of Section 33 proceedings. Para 14.

Arbitration – Limitation – Dismissal of application under Section 33 – Whether benefit of Section 34(3) lost – No.

The fact that an application under Section 33 is eventually dismissed or found without merit does not deprive a party of the benefit available under Section 34(3). The commencement of limitation depends upon disposal of the Section 33 proceedings and not upon their outcome. Paras 13, 15.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 33 – Formal application distinguished from correspondence seeking review.

Where a party formally invokes Section 33 and the Arbitral Tribunal entertains and adjudicates the application, limitation under Section 34(3) runs from disposal of such application. Decision in State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. distinguished, as that case involved only a letter substantially seeking review and not a formal application under Section 33. Para 16.

Arbitration – Interpretation advancing object of Act – Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.

An interpretation requiring parties to file proceedings under Section 34 during pendency of Section 33 proceedings would result in multiplicity of litigation and procedural uncertainty and would defeat the scheme and object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Para 17.

Arbitration – Abuse of process – Frivolous or mala fide applications under Section 33 – Consequences.

Though filing of an application under Section 33 postpones commencement of limitation under Section 34(3), courts are empowered to impose exemplary and punitive costs where such applications are found to be sham, frivolous, mala fide or filed solely for defeating limitation. Para 17.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 33 and 34(3) – Computation of limitation – Certified copy of order disposing Section 33 applications received on 15.09.2022 – Section 34 applications filed on 07.11.2022 – Held, within limitation.

Since both parties had filed applications under Section 33 which were disposed of by common order dated 04.07.2022 and the certified copy thereof was received on 15.09.2022, the applications under Section 34 filed on 07.11.2022 were within the period prescribed by Section 34(3). Paras 19, 20.

Ratio Decidendi

A formal request under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, once entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, postpones commencement of limitation under Section 34(3) until disposal of such request. The benefit is available irrespective of whether the Section 33 application is ultimately allowed or dismissed, provided the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33 was duly invoked. Paras 13–18.

Cases Referred

  1. State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. – distinguished – Para 16.
  2. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gurav – followed – Paras 9, 18.
  3. Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons v. Union of India – relied upon – Para 18.
  4. USS Alliance v. State of U.P. – relied upon – Para 18.

National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.7570 of 2024, decided on 02.06.2026 (Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.)


Section 34 “34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. (…) (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.”

Posted by at

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 8, 10 and 19 – Succession to separate property of male Hindu dying intestate – Nature of rights acquired by widow and daughters – Tenants-in-common and not joint tenants – Legal necessity – Karta doctrine inapplicable.

 

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 8, 10 and 19 – Succession to separate property of male Hindu dying intestate – Nature of rights acquired by widow and daughters – Tenants-in-common and not joint tenants – Legal necessity – Karta doctrine inapplicable.

Where a male Hindu dies intestate leaving separate/self-acquired property, succession opens under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The widow and daughters succeed simultaneously as Class-I heirs and take definite shares in the property. By virtue of Section 19, they hold the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Consequently, the doctrine of survivorship has no application and each heir acquires a distinct and identifiable share. Paras 5, 6, 8.

Joint Tenancy and Tenancy-in-Common – Distinction explained.

In joint tenancy, ownership is joint and indivisible, governed by survivorship, and no co-owner possesses a separately inheritable share. In tenancy-in-common, each co-owner possesses a distinct though undivided share, which devolves upon his or her own heirs by succession. Hindu law generally recognizes joint tenancy only in the context of coparcenary, whereas succession under the Hindu Succession Act creates tenancy-in-common. Paras 7.

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Property inherited under Section 8 – Whether becomes HUF property – No.

Property devolving upon an heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is inherited in the heir's individual capacity and does not automatically acquire the character of coparcenary or Hindu Undivided Family property. Descendants do not obtain rights in such property by birth. The principles laid down in CWT v. Chander Sen, Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar and M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal reaffirmed. Paras 7.

Karta – Alienation for legal necessity – Pre-condition – Existence of coparcenary/joint family property.

The power of a karta to alienate family property for legal necessity arises only in relation to joint family/coparcenary property. Where heirs succeed under Section 8 and hold the property as tenants-in-common with separate shares, no heir can claim authority as karta over the shares belonging to the others. Paras 7, 8.

Widow succeeding to intestate property – Extent of authority.

Upon intestate succession, the widow acquires only her own statutory share. She is competent to deal with or alienate only that share and has no authority to alienate the shares vested in other heirs on the plea of legal necessity. Para 8.

Partition Suit – Sale executed by widow claiming to act as karta for marriage expenses of daughter – Validity.

Where the deceased's separate property devolved equally upon widow and four daughters, each acquiring 1/5th share as tenants-in-common, the widow could not validly alienate the property as karta for meeting marriage expenses or any alleged legal necessity. Such alienation could operate, if at all, only to the extent of her own 1/5th share. Para 8.

Ratio Decidendi

Upon the death of Dajiba, his widow and four daughters succeeded to his separate property under Sections 8 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act and became tenants-in-common under Section 19, each holding a distinct 1/5th share. Since the property was not coparcenary property and the heirs did not constitute a joint tenancy, the widow could not act as karta nor alienate the shares of the other heirs on the ground of legal necessity. The High Court rightly restored the trial court decree and the appeal was dismissed. Paras 5–9.

Cases Referred

  1. Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Ram Chund Dutt – referred – Para 7.
  2. Nawab Nisar Ali Khan v. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan – referred – Para 7.
  3. Azizun Nisa v. Assistant Custodian – referred – Para 7.
  4. In re Schar Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. v. Damer – referred – Para 7.
  5. CWT v. Chander Sen – relied on – Para 7.
  6. Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar – relied on – Para 7.
  7. M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal – relied on – Para 7.

Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.13232 of 2022, decided on 01-06-2026, Supreme Court of India (Sanjay Karol & Augustine George Masih, JJ.)

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)