• Revenue Surplus cases and Coparcenary interests

Hi 

My question is, does anybody know of any caselaw dealing with the following problem ?

The property is ancestral and joint, in Haryana, and pending under the old Punjab Act of 1953. 

The karta dies during the pendency, pre 2005, and the lands must now devolve down to the heirs before surplus determination (as decreed in Sardara Singh, Ranjit Ram, Antu v Naresh etc).

The lands should be considered devolved down by Mitakshara law or coparcenary law. 

That's the caselaw I need. 

Just some reminders, Bhagat Gobind Singh's case (P&H court) says that section 19E of the Punjab act, that is "land of JOint Hindu family to be considered as one" is only for the purpose of surplus determination. It does not interfere in any other right or coparcenary rights. 

By that logic, Therefore, devolvement should be by coparcenary custom as surplus proceedings are still pending. 

Any help ?
Asked 13 days ago in Civil Law from Chandigarh, Chandigarh
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babu Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 January, 2015

 is settled proposition of law that in case the landowner dies at any stage of pending litigation, the surplus area has to be re- determined afresh in the hands of his legal heirs. Even the decision of Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana high  Court in the case of Ranjit Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 259 has been approved by Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Singh (dead) by L.Rs. v. The Collector, Bhatinda, 1996(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 446 and Full Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 744 has specifically held that death of big landowner during the pendency of surplus area proceedings causes affectation of surplus area which is required to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23296 Answers
1220 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
i am unable to find any such judgment 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23296 Answers
1220 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Section 19-E in the principal Act and that section reads as below: "19-E. land owned by Hindu undivided family to be deemed land of one landowner. ' -- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force,-- (a) Where, immediately before the commencement of this Act, a landowner and his descendants constitute a Hindu undivided family, the land owned by such family shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the land of that landowner and no descendant shall, as member of such family, be entitled to claim that in respect of his share of such land he is 3 landowner In his own right; and (b) a partition of land owned by a Hindu undivided family referred to in Clause (a) shall be deemed to be a disposition of land for the purposes of Sections 10-A and 16. Explanation.-- In this section, the expression 'descendant' includes an adopted son. " In Pepsu Act 13 of 1955 similarly Section 32-KK has been inserted, and, as already stated, this Is in" words exactly the same as Section 19-E in the former act and as reproduced above.

6. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down, inter alia, that when a Hindu male dies after the commencement of this Act having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act. Then follows the proviso which states, inter alia, that if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in class I of the schedule, which includes a widow, the interest of the deceased shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, Explanation (1) to Section 6 states, inter alia, that for the purpose of this section, interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. This explanation defines the expression "the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property" 


In a case decided by P&H high court in the matter of
Babu Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 January, 2015

 is settled proposition of law that in case the landowner dies at any stage of pending litigation, the surplus area has to be re- determined afresh in the hands of his legal heirs. Even the decision of Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana high  Court in the case of Ranjit Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1981 PLJ 259 has been approved by Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Singh (dead) by L.Rs. v. The Collector, Bhatinda, 1996(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 446 and Full Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 744 has specifically held that death of big landowner during the pendency of surplus area proceedings causes affectation of surplus area which is required to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14069 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
I need an example where, after the death of the big landowner during pendency of the case, the devolution was done according to Mitakshara coparcenary law for an ancestral property PRIOR to surplus calculation on the heirs.



Gujarat high court case 
Navnitlal Sakarlal v. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat (Gujarat)(D.B.) 
Before :- B.J. Divan, C.J. and P.D. Desai, J.
Wealth-Tax Reference No 19 of 1970. D/d. 2.7.1974.
Navnitlal Sakarlal - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat - Respondent

The above reference with regard to surplus wealth of the deceased and devolution of the same on coparceners may be of some use to you. 
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14069 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Civil Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14069 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23296 Answers
1220 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18167 Answers
449 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12123 Answers
232 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3534 Answers
130 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
868 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
437 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2752 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1916 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1950 Answers
65 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0