Case title: MUKATLAL VS KAILASH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 12842 OF 2018
Order on: April 16, 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Fact of the case:
The appeal arises from a special leave petition challenging the final judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2017, passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The judgment in question pertains to Division Bench Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1029 of 2006, wherein the appellant, Mukatlal, challenged the legality and validity of a judgment dated 21st July, 2006, passed by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Special Bench Civil Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1993. The suit involves a dispute over the right of succession in the unpartitioned Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, specifically regarding the plaintiff, Kailash Chand’s, claim as the legal heir of Hindu widow Smt. Nandkanwarbai. The fundamental question of law revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, regarding the right of succession in Joint Hindu Family property. The suit property was originally owned by Kishan Lal, who had two sons, Mangilal and Madho Lal. Mangilal had a son named Kanwarlal. Madho Lal was married to Smt. Nandkanwarbai. Madho Lal died issueless in 1929, and Smt. Nandkanwarbai claims to have adopted the plaintiff, Kailash Chand, on 12th June, 1959. Kanwarlal, the son of Mangilal, executed a will of the entire unpartitioned estate in favor of the defendant, Mukat Lal (the appellant), on 9th February, 1949. Kanwarlal passed away in 1954, and thus, the suit property devolved upon the defendant, Mukat Lal, under the will executed by Kanwarlal.
Issues framed by court:
Whether the interpretation and application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, concerning the right of succession in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property.
Whether the validity of the adoption claimed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai and the effect of the will executed by Kanwarlal in favor of the defendant, Mukat Lal, on the succession rights of the plaintiff, Kailash Chand.
Legal provisions:
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This provision deals with the right of a Hindu widow to succeed to the property of her deceased husband.
Contentions of Appellant:
The appellant, Mukat Lal, contended that the will executed by Kanwarlal in his favor is valid and legally binding. They argued that Kanwarlal had the right to dispose of his share of the property through a will, and as the beneficiary of the will, Mukat Lal is entitled to inherit the suit property. The appellant argued that they have been in possession of the suit property for a considerable period, and their possession has been open, continuous, and hostile. They argued that their adverse possession strengthens their claim to ownership of the property. Mukat Lal challenged the validity of the adoption claimed by the respondent, Kailash Chand, arguing that it was not conducted in accordance with Hindu law or that it was made fraudulently or under coercion.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondent, Kailash Chand, contend that as the adopted son of Madho Lal’s widow, Smt. Nandkanwarbai, he is entitled to succeed to Madho Lal’s share of the Hindu Undivided Family property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They argued that Nandkanwarbai’s adoption conferred upon him the status of a legal heir and full owner of Madho Lal’s share of the property. The respondent challenged the validity of the will executed by Kanwarlal in favor of Mukat Lal, arguing that it was executed under undue influence, coercion, or fraud. They argued that the will should be declared null and void, and the property should devolve as per the laws of succession.
Court analysis & Judgement:
In the case of Mukatlal vs. Kailash Chand & Others, the court examined a dispute over succession rights in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property. The fundamental issue was whether the plaintiff, Kailash Chand, as the adopted son of Madho Lal’s widow, Smt. Nandkanwarbai, had the right to succeed to Madho Lal’s share of the property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The suit property was initially owned by Kishan Lal, with two sons, Mangilal and Madho Lal. After Madho Lal’s death, Nandkanwarbai claimed to have adopted Kailash Chand. Kanwarlal, the son of Mangilal, executed a will in favor of the defendant, Mukat Lal. The court considered the validity of the adoption, the effect of the will, and the application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Eventually, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing Kailash Chand’s right to succeed to Madho Lal’s share of the property as per Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The judgment included, inter alia, reasons on the legality of adoption, interpretation of section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as well as considerations relating to Kanwarlal’s will. The decision upheld the plaintiff’s claim to the property, in accordance with the principles of Hindu succession law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
