Property of Hindu male doesn’t remain the joint family property on his death

Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 13th January 2020

M Arumugam V/s.  Ammaniammal and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8642/2009

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. One Moola Gounder formed a coparcenary property with his 2 sons who died intestate on 28.12.1971. On his death 1/3^rd property went to each son and the remaining 1/3^rd part of Moola Gounder was to be distributed among his wife(widow), 2 sons and 3 daughters. 
2. The youngest daughter filed the suit in 1989 for partition but the same was opposed by sons stating that a release deed was executed by the mother and the daughters by giving up their shares in favour of the sons. It was also stated that the mother had acted as guardian on behalf of the plaintiff, who was a minor then. Later, a partition deed was executed amongst the sons, of which one of the witnesses was the husband of the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff contended that the release deed was void ab initio as the mother was not competent to relinquish her share by acting as her guardian.
4. In reference to which the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the mother acted as the natural guardian of the minor daughter and no steps were taken by the plaintiff on attaining majority to get the release deed set aside within the period of limitation of 3 years. 
5. High Court rejecting the reasoning of the trial court judgment allowed the appeal & set-aside the judgment on the following findings: 
   1. The property continued to be joint family property in the hands of legal heirs even after the death of Moola Gounder.
   2. Since it was joint family property, mother could not have acted as guardian of the minor plaintiff to relinquish her shares. So, the release deed was void ab initio.
6. Therefore, the present appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Apex Court of India. 

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the mother could act as the natural guardian of the minor daughters in respect of the property inherited from the Moola Gounder? 
2.  whether the property inherited in terms of Sections 6 and 8 of the Succession Act was to be treated as the property of co-owners or as joint family property?

RULING OF THE COURT/ THE COURT HELD THAT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and uphold the Judgment of the Trial Court in the instant matter on the following findings and observed the following: 

1. In the light of Section-6 & 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the SC took note that: 
   1. When a Hindu male with female heirs in Class-I dies, his interest in coparcenary property devolves by succession and not survivorship.
   2. Notional partition of the property takes place, and the heirs succeed to the property as tenants-in-common. 
   3. The property does not retain character of joint family property anymore.
2. Furthermore, “…. Section 30 also clearly indicates that the property was not to be treated as a joint family property though it may be held jointly by the legal heirs as tenants in common till the property is divided, apportioned or dealt with in a family settlement.” 
3. Per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardians Act, natural guardian of the minor cannot act in respect of minor’s undivided interest in joint family property. That embargo will not be attracted if the property is held to be not joint family property.
4. Moreover, “When such dissolution takes place and some of the members relinquish their share in favour of the Karta, it is obvious that the Karta cannot act as the guardian of that minor whose share is being relinquished in favour of the Karta. There would be a conflict of interest. In such an eventuality it would be the mother alone who would be the natural guardian and, therefore, the document executed by her cannot be said to be a void document”. 
5. The Court also observed that at best, the release deed was a voidable document under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which should have been challenged within 3 years of the plaintiff’s attainment of majority and while taking note that when the release deed was executed in 1973, the plaintiff was aged 17 years. The partition deed amongst the sons was executed in 1980, in which the husband of the plaintiff was an attesting witness. The suit was led nine years later. These circumstances also led the Court to discard the plaintiff’s plea.