The Supreme Court gave a final decision in a long family land fight. The Court said all legal heirs have the right to get their fair share in the property.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others vs Metpalli Muthaiah (Dead) by Layout Regularizations Scheme (LRs) is a compelling illustration of how property disputes involving ancestral property and succession under Hindu law are adjudicated, especially in the context of female heirs.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of a long-standing family dispute concerning rights over ancestral property. The appellants, being the daughters of the deceased Muthaiah, claimed their rightful share in the ancestral estate left behind by their father.
The respondent, however, contended that a partition had already taken place among the male members of the family, and thus, the daughters had no right to claim a share.
The matter was complicated by conflicting claims about whether the property was self-acquired or ancestral, and whether a valid oral partition had ever occurred.
The lower courts had given divergent views, which led the parties to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on the daughters’ entitlements under the Hindu Succession Act, particularly in light of the 2005 Amendment, which granted equal coparcenary rights to daughters.
Submission of the Parties
Appellant:
The appellants, who are the daughters of the deceased Muthaiah, submitted that the property in dispute was ancestral and that they were entitled to an equal share as coparceners under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
They contended that no valid partition had taken place during their father’s lifetime and that the alleged oral partition relied upon by the respondents was fabricated and lacked legal sanctity or documentary evidence. The appellants further argued that they had never been made parties to any partition and thus remained entitled to their lawful share in the joint family property.
Respondent:
On the other hand, the respondents, representing the legal heirs of Muthaiah, contended that an oral partition had already taken place among the male members of the family long before the 2005 amendment came into force.
They maintained that the partition had been accepted and acted upon by the family, and therefore, the property ceased to be joint or ancestral by the time the daughters asserted their claim. The respondents argued that the 2005 amendment was not retrospective and could not reopen a partition that had already been completed. Consequently, they asserted that the daughters had no claim over the said property.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence and legal submissions, ruled in favour of the appellants, holding that the daughters were entitled to a share in the ancestral property, as there was no concrete evidence to prove a valid prior partition.
The Court observed that the alleged oral partition lacked credibility and could not be accepted without proper documentation or corroborative evidence. It emphasized that mere claims of past partition cannot override lawful entitlements under the Hindu Succession Act, particularly after the 2005 Amendment. In a significant remark, the Court stated,
“There is absolutely no documentary evidence on record to indicate that there was a partition as pleaded. Oral partition set up is neither established nor reliable.”
ALSO READ: Journalist Shot Dead in UP’s Sitapur: Police Cite Land Dispute, Family Alleges Murder
The Court further clarified that in the absence of any valid partition, the daughters retained their coparcenary rights under the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, noting that the trial court’s judgment was based on proper evaluation of the evidence and legal principles, and thus could not be faulted. The Court said,
“The trial Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-Lasum Bai and granting her absolute rights over the suit schedule properties including the disputed property admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas which was sold to Janardhan Reddy vide registered sale deed dated 22nd November, 1994. The view taken by the trial Court being based on apropos appreciation of the evidence and the prevailing legal principles is unassailable in facts as well as in law.”
On the other hand, the High Court was found to have erred by interfering with this well-reasoned judgment and unjustly reducing Lasum Bai’s share. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 23rd January 2014 and reinstated the original trial court judgment dated 15th November 1994.
Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 was allowed, while Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others vs Metapalli Muthaiah (Deceased) by Legal Representatives
Civil Appeal No(s). 5922 of 2015
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Land Disputes
