RAMCHANDRA MADANLAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two Petitions are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, on May 11, 1976, dismissing an appeal filed by the Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 813 of 1976 and his son and the crossobjections filed therein by his sister Vimaladevi, the Petitioner in Special Civil Application No, 3422 of 1976, challenging the order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Bhokerdan in District Aurangabad, dated January 12, 1976. The only point involved in these two Special Civil Applications is whether the two learned Tribunals were right in ignoring the fact that Madanlal, the father of Rameshchandra, died on November 21, 1968, leaving behind him three sons, a widow and five daughters and also in ignoring a will made by Madnlal in favour of his daughter Vimaladevi, and the partition or family arrangement made between Madanlal and his son during his lifetime and the arrangement arrived at subsequent to his death between two sons and other members of the family which was recognised in the mutation register.

(2.) Under section 19(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate, they shall take the property as tenants-in-common & not as joint tenants In the present case even assuming that the partition or family arrangement relied upon by the family and the will in favour of Vimaladevi not challenged by any member of the family has to be ignored, the heirs succeeded to the property of the deceased Madanlal as tenants-in- common.

(3.) It was the duty of the learned Tribunals to bear in mind section 3(3)(e)(ii) under which persons held jointly in the estate, the shace of the person shall be taken to the extent of land such person would hold in proportion of his share in the joint holding as if the land had been so divided and separately hold on the relevant date. It is undisputed that if such notional partition is made among the sons, widow and daughters of the deceased Madanlal, the Petitioner could mot be declared as surplus holder.