SHIRAMABAI Vs. KALGONDA BHIMGONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this case is one of interpretation of Section 6 of that Hindu Succession Act 1956.

(2.) ONE Bhimgonda died leaving behind him, the plaintiff his widow, a son defendant No. 1, three daughters defendants, 2, 3 and 4 by his predeceased wife Anjanabai. Bhimgonda and his son formed a coparcenary and owned the suit property. Jangonda defendant No. 5 is the father of Anjanabai and defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are two co-sharers of some properties. The plaintiff filed this suit, for partition and possession of her share in the properties-claiming that she was entitled to 1/3 plus 1/15 i. e. 2/5. Defendant No. 1 contended that she was entitled to only. 1/10th share and no more. The learned trial Judge has. held that the plaintiff has 2/5th share in the family properties, and the learned District Judge has held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/15th share, but as the defendants had admitted it to be 1/10th, he decreed accordingly. The question that arises is not easy to answer. 2a. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is as follows:

(3.) IN the present case defendants 2, 3 and 4 are daughters some of whom are unmarried. Under Hindu Lavi before division between cosharers their maintenance and expenses for their marriage must be provided for cut of the joint family proporty. The l/3rd share will there fore be further reduced. Is it then correct to hold that this was never intended and Explanation to the section only means such share as would come to him on a division between only the male coparceners as such without any reduction? In other words does it mean that while considering the share of the deceased coparcener females should be wholly disregarded? If this view is taken, difficulties may arise where a person dies joint with his brothers and has two or three sisters. Undoubtedly a provision for their marriage and maintenance lias to be made on a partition between the brothers otherwise it would bring about more unjust results.