The High Court held that, following the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and Supreme Court precedent, daughters are necessary parties to suits involving ancestral property of the Mitakshara Joint Family. Any decree passed without impleading coparcener daughters is liable to be set aside. This judgment upholds existing Supreme Court precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh, affecting ancestral property litigation under Hindu law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/499/2017 of Smt. Kejiya Bai Since Dead Through Lrs 1. Baharu Vs Ashwani Kumar Sahu |
| CNR | CGHC010095892017 |
| Date of Registration | 11-11-2017 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Hindu Succession, Civil Procedure (necessary parties), Property Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a decree relating to coparcenary/ancestral property can be passed without impleading coparcener daughters as parties in light of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, post-2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, daughters are coparceners and necessary parties in suits for declaration of title or injunction concerning ancestral property. Failure to implead such daughters is a fatal defect; any decree passed without them is liable to be set aside as ineffective and bad in law. The trial court’s judgment and decree were set aside for this reason and the suit remanded for fresh adjudication after joining daughters as parties. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Cited the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, and Supreme Court rulings establishing the necessity of coparcener daughters as parties for effective and binding decrees. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The suit property was the subject of a dispute between brothers (sons of Tarandas) regarding ancestral property descended from their maternal grandmother, Paisarnin Bai. Plaintiff sought a declaration of title and injunction; trial court decreed in his favour, holding the sale-deed executed by one brother as null and void. Daughters of late Tarandas were not made parties. The High Court, on appeal, found this was contrary to law after the 2005 amendment. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts addressing Hindu Succession Act, 2005 matters |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | Distinguishes pre-2005 practice where daughters were not necessary parties in suits relating to ancestral property |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates post-2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act: daughters are coparceners at par with sons, with equal rights in ancestral property.
- Decree for declaration, injunction, or partition concerning joint family or ancestral property passed without joining coparcener daughters is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
- Trial courts must ensure all coparcener daughters are joined before passing a binding decree on Mitakshara coparcenary property.
- Non-joinder of such necessary parties (including daughters) cannot be cured and is fatal to maintainability as per Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
- Practitioners must carefully examine party array in succession/property disputes to avoid decrees being set aside for non-joinder.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, daughters are coparceners and have equal rights in joint family property governed by Mitakshara law, confirmed by the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma.
- The suit in question was for declaration of title and challenging a sale-deed relating to ancestral property, but the coparcener daughters were not made parties.
- The Court cited Vineeta Sharma holding that daughters must get share equal to sons, and that pending matters must comply with the amended law.
- Relying on Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi, the Court found that a decree affecting coparcenary property cannot be passed validly without necessary parties—here, the daughters.
- The Court held that Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC does not permit decrees in the absence of necessary parties; non-joinder is fatal, and trial courts have a duty to join necessary parties suo motu.
- The decree passed by the trial court was therefore set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh decision after impleading the daughters as parties.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (Defendant No. 2/Purchaser & others):
- Challenged the identity of the plaintiff, alleging impersonation.
- Claimed the property was not joint but belonged separately to defendant No. 1 due to alleged adoption.
- Asserted that defendant No. 1 could alienate entire property as owner or at least his share.
- Argued that daughters were necessary parties and their non-joinder invalidated the suit.
Respondent (Plaintiff):
- Contended property was ancestral and inherited equally by both brothers from their grandmother.
- Asserted that the sale-deed executed by only one brother was null and void.
- Supported trial court’s finding that both brothers were co-owners and sought dismissal of the appeal.
Factual Background
The dispute arose over ancestral property at Village Bohardih, initially owned by Paisarnin Bai, then inherited by her daughter (mother of plaintiff and defendant No. 1), and subsequently by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 (both brothers). After certain contested alienations, plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and cancellation of a sale-deed dated 15.02.2002. The trial court decreed in the plaintiff’s favour, but daughters of the family (potential coparceners post-2005) were not made parties. This non-joinder was challenged in appeal, leading to the High Court’s present decision.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court quoted and interpreted the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: daughters become coparceners by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as sons.
- The proviso about the effect of pre-20 December 2004 alienations was invoked.
- The Court referred to Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, providing that no suit shall be defeated for non-joinder except in the case of necessary parties, and held that coparcener daughters are necessary parties for such suits.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded or referenced in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court set aside the trial court decree and remitted the entire suit for de novo consideration after joining necessary parties (the daughters). Parties were given liberty to amend pleadings and lead additional evidence only to the extent of the effect of joining daughters; other evidence/pleadings to remain intact.
- A specific timeline was set: trial court to endeavour to complete the retrial within 1 year and 6 months.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedent (Vineeta Sharma, Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan) affirmatively relied upon and applied.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44825 (neutral citation)
- Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1
- Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi, 2022 SCC OnLine 1307