NEELAM Vs. SADA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is predicated on the fact that the two plaintiffs have a share in the properties inherited by their grandfather (defendant No.1) from his own father. The entire case of the plaintiffs is that the said properties are thus "ancestral properties" in the hands of their grandfather defendant No.1 and in which the father of the plaintiffs had a share by birth and which share, upon the death of their father devolved on the plaintiffs and their mother (defendant No.6). The plaintiffs thus claim partition. The defendants No.2 to 5 are the paternal aunts of the plaintiffs and the daughters of the defendant No.1. According to the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 5 have 1/6 th share each and the plaintiffs and defendant No.6 together have remaining 1/6 th share in the said properties.

(2.) It has at the outset been enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs as to when the father of the grandfather of the plaintiffs died. He is informed to have died in the year 1974.

(3.) The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 enacted more than half a century ago did away with the concept of ancestral properties, as existed prior thereto. After the coming into force thereof, the property inherited by a male from his father is held as self acquired property in which children of such male do not acquire any right by birth. Reference in this regard can be made to Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen, 1986 AIR(SC) 1753 and Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, 1987 AIR(SC) 558. The counsel for defendants No.1 to 5 in this regard has also referred to Master Daljit Singh Vs. S. Dara Singh, 2000 AIR(Del) 292 and Pratap Vs. Shiv Shanker, 2009 164 DLT 479. However the popular misconception of "ancestral properties" continues to hold field, as is apparent from plethora of claims, even in courts, being made on the said premise.