Case Analysis: Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum And Ors AIR 1978 SC 1239.

Co-Authors: Shree Shingade and Aditi Rai.

CITATION

AIR 1978 SC 1239;
1978 SCR (3) 761;
1978 SCC (3) 383.

NAMES OF PARTIES

Petitioner: Gurupad Khandappa Magdum;
Respondent: Hirabai Khandappa Magdum.

JUDGES

Justice Y.V. Chandrachud.

INTRODUCTION

The patriarchal biases of Hindu law date back to its origin. Gender discrimination was a hard reality that persisted in the matter of inheritance. The entire share of a deceased coparcener devolved by survivorship on the remaining coparceners and the right of females was reduced to mere maintenance out of the joint family property. With the growing emphasis on gender equality, a need for a radical reform in Mitakshara coparcenary was felt which required that when one of the coparceners died it was necessary that, not only in cases of his separate property but also in respect of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property, there should be equal distribution of that share between his male and female heirs.

The Proviso to section 6 of The Hindu Succession Act 1956 conferred new rights for the benefit of female heirs and provided that if the deceased had left himself surviving a female heir mentioned in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative mentioned in the same class who claims through such females, the interest of the deceased coparcener shall devolve either by intestate succession or testamentary succession and not by survivorship. Explanation 1 to Section 6 defines the expression ‘of interest of the deceased in Mitakshara Coparcenary Property and takes into account the concept of notional partition. The concept of Notional partition is one of those fictions of law which is employed to make a provision of law work.

The explanation provides that to ascertain the interest of the deceased coparcener, an imaginary partition of the joint family property is to be effected, through legal fiction, immediately before the death of such coparcener. Out of the share so computed the share of the deceased coparcener is to be then allowed to devolve on his heirs as per rules of intestate succession. The same view of computation of the interest of the deceased coparcener has been retained by the legislature in the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 which has however completely wiped out the concept of survivorship.

Various conflicting judicial opinions existed as far as the scope of notional partition was concerned. A leading case on the same is that of Gurupad v. Hirabai. This Article is a case analysis of ‘Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum’.

FACTS

• Khandappa, Karta of a joint Hindu family died leaving behind his wife Hirabai, who is the plaintiff, two sons Gurupad and Shivapad, who are defendants 1 and 2 respectively, and three daughters, defendants 3 to 5.
• Hirabai demanded partition and separate possession of 7/24th share in the joint family properties which was computed after taking into account both, her 1/4th share in the property if a partition were to take place during Khandappa’s lifetime and 1/24th share out of the interest of the Khandappa computed by effecting a notional partition.
• Defendants 2 to 5 admitted the plaintiff’s claim but defendant 1, Gurupad opposed it.

ISSUES

1. Whether this notional Partition has the effect not merely of bringing about devolution by a succession of the interest of deceased coparcener in a Mitakshara family but goes further and results in a partition among all the members who would be entitled to a share in the coparcenary property as if a regular partition had taken place?

JUDGMENT

The Trial Court rejected defendant 1’s claim. However, by applying the ratio of Shiramabai Bhimgonda v. Kalgonda, the learned Trial judge limited the share of the plaintiff to 1/24th, refusing to club ¼th and 1/24th together. The defendant filed an appeal against the order of the Trial Court, while the plaintiff filed cross objections before the High Court. The High Court extended the share of the plaintiff in the property to 7/24th by relying on the ratio of Rangubai Lalji v. Laxman Lalji, which had overruled the erroneous judgment in Shiramabai Bhimgonda.

On an appeal against this judgment of the High Court, Chandrachud CJ, who delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court thoroughly reviewed the provisions of the Act. He stated that to find out the exact entitlement of the survivors of a deceased coparcener, we have to proceed in two stages:-

1. To calculate his interest in the coparcenary property, a notional partition is to be effected following the rules of Hindu Law.
2. Then, the rules of succession as provided for in sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act are to apply to distribute the deceased coparcener’s previously ascertained share among his survivors.

Thus, two things that become essential for granting adequate relief to the plaintiff are her share in her husband’s share and her husband’s share in the undivided coparcenary. The proviso to Section 6 contains the formula for ascertaining the share of the claimant while Explanation 1 contains a formula for fixing the deceased’s share. In the absence of any testamentary instrument in the present case, the plaintiff’s share in her husband’s property is to determine by application of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act. In the present case Khandappa, the deceased is survived by a widow, two sons, and three daughters. All of them belong to the category of class 1 heirs and will thus take the share simultaneously i.e. the two sons, three daughters, and the widow will take one share each (Section 10 r/w Rules 1 and 2). Since six members will take a share in the deceased’s property, the plaintiff’s share will be the next.

The next step would be to ascertain the deceased’s share in the undivided coparcenary by effecting a notional partition as incorporated in Explanation 1 of Section 6. In a partition between Khandappa and his sons, Khandappa’s wife i.e. the plaintiff would also be entitled to a share equal to that of a son ( Mulla’s Hindu Law). Since there are four sharers, Khandappa’s share will be ¼th the coparcenary property.
Now, the question that needed to be answered that whether the plaintiff’s share in the coparcenary property is limited to 1/24th or whether it will be determined after clubbing both 1/24th and ¼th, that is to say, 7/24th.

The learned judge observed that there is no justification in limiting the plaintiff’s share to 1/24th by not taking into account the ¼thto share which the plaintiff would have been entitled to have there been a partition during the lifetime of her husband. Explanation 1 to section 6 compels the assumption of a fiction that in fact, a partition of the property has taken place as a result of which, all the consequences which arise out of a real partition are to be worked out. This assumption, once made, is irrevocable and must permeate through all the stages of the process of ascertainment of shares.

The Court observed that it would be taking a retrograde step If It restricted the operation of the fiction created by Explanation 1. The interpretation which furthers the legislative intent of remedying the injustice meted out to Hindu women over the years is to be preferred.

ANALYSIS

Explanation 1 to section 6 simply incorporates a mechanism under which the undivided interest of a deceased coparcener can be worked out. The above decision of the Supreme Court does not, in any way, imply that such a notional partition will result in total severance of the joint status of the family. It cannot be said that after taking out the interest of the deceased coparcener, the coparcenary does not continue among the surviving coparceners. Not until an unequivocal intention to part is expressed by one or all of the coparceners, the coparcenary continues and the joint status of the family remains intact.

It is to be further noted that the above observations made by the Supreme Court are to be read in the context of the facts of the case. The ratio that flows from the above decision is that in the event of a female Hindu, who inherits an interest in the joint family property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, demanding a partition, such female would be entitled to not only the interest that she had inherited but also the share that would have been notionally allotted to her by the legal fiction incorporated in Explanation 1 to the Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. As a result of which, the part of the property that would fall into a women’s share would be enlarged. It is to be also noted that this does not result in the ouster of such females from the joint family. The female continues to be a member of the joint family unless she demands a partition. It is only her share in the joint family property that gets fixed on the death of the male coparcener. Any other interpretation would lead to strange results.

CONCLUSION

Gurupad v. Hirabai is a laud-worthy judgment that aimed at removing to some extent, the disparity that existed based on the gender of the person inheriting. Earlier, women were not allowed to have a share in the property, their rights were limited only to that of maintenance. However, over the period, legislations like the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act 1929 conferred heirship rights on certain females; Section 3 of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act 1937 conferred upon the Hindu widows the right to a share in the coparcenary property as well as the right to ask for partition; Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 provided that any property possessed by a female Hindu shall be acquired by her as a full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.

In the present case, the Supreme Court tilted its decision in the favour of women by giving preferential treatment to the interpretation that would serve to remedy the injustice from which Hindu women have suffered over the years. The decision in Gurupad v. Hirabai was in tune with the wave of reforms favouring women.

This judgment seeks to serve the legislative purpose of ensuring that the female heirs are treated at par with the male heirs. This is done to ensure that the social reforms, that have taken place over the years intending to enlarge the interests of females that they have been devoid of for years, are given a legislative gloss.