# Patti Lakshmi Perumallu' v. Patti Krishna. Vena111111a

- **Citation:** [2017] 2 S.C.R. 813
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. i 110 '- of2006
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/patti-lakshmi-perumallu-v-patti-krishna-vena111111a-31849
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

.
.-
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 813
RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU SINCE DECEASED
THR. L.RS.& ORS;
v.
GOBERDHAN SAO SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS.
. .
:
(Civil Appeal No. 1110 ofZ006)
APRJL06,2017
: [RANJAN GOGOi ~ND ASIIOK BHUSIIAN, JJ.) ·
•Partition - Allocation of shares as regards joint family
properties - Under s.3(2) of Hindu Womens "Rights to Property Act,
1937, on the death ofhusband, his widow becoiues entitle to a share
in the joint family property - Further, property of a joi/1/ family
does not cease to belong to the family merely because. the family is
represe111ed by a single co-parcener who possesses rights which an
owner of property may possess - Hindu Womens Rights to Property
Act, 1937 - s,3(2) - Hindu Succession.Act, 1956 - s.6.
Partlyallowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The common ancestor of parties 'FM' died in
the year 1940. At the time of his death, the Hindu Women's
Rights to Property Act, 1937 was. in force. 1Jnder Section 3(2) of
the 1937 Act, on the death of'Jo"M' his widow/wife 'PD' became
entitled to a share in the joint family property. However, the
. share· of 'PD' would remain undeterinined till such time when
there is a partition in the family. On the date of death of 'FM',
his son 'MS' did not have any male issue. However, the joint
· family in question can be understood to have continued with 'MS'
as the 'Karla' arid the property continued to belong to the joint
Jamily.Thus, the position prior to the coming into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that the joint family continued
on the death of '.FM' witi1 'MS' as the sole coparcener and the
joint family properties continued to belong to the. family and
furthermore 'PD' continued to have a share in the property. [Paras
9, 10, 11, 121 (817-E, G; sis-c, }'-GJ
·
.· 2.1 After the death of 'MS' in the year l961, following the
provisions of ~eetion 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a
notional partition· just before the death of 'MS' will have to be
813
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
814
A
D
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 2 S.C.R.
'
'
presumed. There would, therefore, be 8 sharers in. the joint family
properties and the share of each one. of them would equal i.e. 1/. ' ''
81h each. Insofar as 'DD', the wife of 'MS' is concerned, she
would be entitled to l/8th share of the joint family properties
upon the notional partition being given effect to. [Para 14) (819E-F; 820-A)
.
2.2. Next aspect of the case is with regard to the l/8th share
of 'MS' and the devolution of the said share to the surviving
members of the joint family. ;In this regard, it can be lield will1out
any difficulty.that under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 the share of 'MS' in tbe joint family property
(1/81h) would devolve by intestate succession among surviving
members of the joint family. Thus afler 1961, 'PD' being the widow
of '.FM' bad l/81h plus 1/721h share in the joint family. property,
namely, 10/72th share. 'PD' died in the year 1967 leaving behind
her daughter 'UD' and the children of her predeceased son 'MS'.
'UD' will be entitled to receive one-half share of 'PD' i.e. half of
' 10/72th share i.e. 10/144th sbare. The remaining 10/144th share.
that would go to the branch of'MS' will have to be divided amongst
8 heirs of 'MS' 1 namely, the widow and the seven children. The
appellants-defendants are entitled to 38.1% share in tbc joint
family property instead of 3.7.5% as ordered by the courls below. ·
[Paras 15, 16, 18) [821-D-E, II; 822-A-B; 823-D) ·
Patti Lakshmi Perumallu' v. Patti Krishna. Vena111111a
(1965) 1 SCR 26; Gowli Buddmma v. Co111111issio11er of.·
Income Tax, Mysore, Bangalore 119661 3 SCR · 224;.
Gurupad Khandappa Afagdum v. Hirabai Khandappa ....
Mdgdum and Ors. (1978) 3 SCC 383 : [1978) 3 SCR .
761 - relied on.
'
'
' Case La·w Reference
''
(1965) 1 SCR 26
relied on.
Para 10
J1966J 3 SCR 224
relied on
Para 11
Jl978J 3 SCR 761'
relied on
Para14

## Text

.
.-
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 813
RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU SINCE DECEASED
THR. L.RS.& ORS;
v.
GOBERDHAN SAO SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS.
. .
:
(Civil Appeal No. 1110 ofZ006)
APRJL06,2017
: [RANJAN GOGOi ~ND ASIIOK BHUSIIAN, JJ.) ·
•Partition - Allocation of shares as regards joint family
properties - Under s.3(2) of Hindu Womens "Rights to Property Act,
1937, on the death ofhusband, his widow becoiues entitle to a share
in the joint family property - Further, property of a joi/1/ family
does not cease to belong to the family merely because. the family is
represe111ed by a single co-parcener who possesses rights which an
owner of property may possess - Hindu Womens Rights to Property
Act, 1937 - s,3(2) - Hindu Succession.Act, 1956 - s.6.
Partlyallowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The common ancestor of parties 'FM' died in
the year 1940. At the time of his death, the Hindu Women's
Rights to Property Act, 1937 was. in force. 1Jnder Section 3(2) of
the 1937 Act, on the death of'Jo"M' his widow/wife 'PD' became
entitled to a share in the joint family property. However, the
. share· of 'PD' would remain undeterinined till such time when
there is a partition in the family. On the date of death of 'FM',
his son 'MS' did not have any male issue. However, the joint
· family in question can be understood to have continued with 'MS'
as the 'Karla' arid the property continued to belong to the joint
Jamily.Thus, the position prior to the coming into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that the joint family continued
on the death of '.FM' witi1 'MS' as the sole coparcener and the
joint family properties continued to belong to the. family and
furthermore 'PD' continued to have a share in the property. [Paras
9, 10, 11, 121 (817-E, G; sis-c, }'-GJ
·
.· 2.1 After the death of 'MS' in the year l961, following the
provisions of ~eetion 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a
notional partition· just before the death of 'MS' will have to be
813
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
814
A
D
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 2 S.C.R.
'
'
presumed. There would, therefore, be 8 sharers in. the joint family
properties and the share of each one. of them would equal i.e. 1/. ' ''
81h each. Insofar as 'DD', the wife of 'MS' is concerned, she
would be entitled to l/8th share of the joint family properties
upon the notional partition being given effect to. [Para 14) (819E-F; 820-A)
.
2.2. Next aspect of the case is with regard to the l/8th share
of 'MS' and the devolution of the said share to the surviving
members of the joint family. ;In this regard, it can be lield will1out
any difficulty.that under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 the share of 'MS' in tbe joint family property
(1/81h) would devolve by intestate succession among surviving
members of the joint family. Thus afler 1961, 'PD' being the widow
of '.FM' bad l/81h plus 1/721h share in the joint family. property,
namely, 10/72th share. 'PD' died in the year 1967 leaving behind
her daughter 'UD' and the children of her predeceased son 'MS'.
'UD' will be entitled to receive one-half share of 'PD' i.e. half of
' 10/72th share i.e. 10/144th sbare. The remaining 10/144th share.
that would go to the branch of'MS' will have to be divided amongst
8 heirs of 'MS' 1 namely, the widow and the seven children. The
appellants-defendants are entitled to 38.1% share in tbc joint
family property instead of 3.7.5% as ordered by the courls below. ·
[Paras 15, 16, 18) [821-D-E, II; 822-A-B; 823-D) ·
Patti Lakshmi Perumallu' v. Patti Krishna. Vena111111a
(1965) 1 SCR 26; Gowli Buddmma v. Co111111issio11er of.·
Income Tax, Mysore, Bangalore 119661 3 SCR · 224;.
Gurupad Khandappa Afagdum v. Hirabai Khandappa ....
Mdgdum and Ors. (1978) 3 SCC 383 : [1978) 3 SCR .
761 - relied on.
'
'
' Case La·w Reference
''
(1965) 1 SCR 26
relied on.
Para 10
J1966J 3 SCR 224
relied on
Para 11
Jl978J 3 SCR 761'
relied on
Para14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. i 110 '-
of2006:
·
· ' ·
RAM NATH SAO@ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO ·815
j
~
• '
~
.
.
~
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2003 of the High Court
A
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Appeal from Original Decree No. 307 of
1989 ..
Gaurav Agrawal, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Prashant Kumar, Advs.
for the Appellants.
'
Arup Banerjee, M. K. Verma, Braj Ki shore Mishra, Advs. for the
8
·Respondents.
· ·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOi, J. I. The appellants are the defendants in a
partition suit filed by the.respondents, as plaintiffs, seeking partition. of c
.. various properties specifically mentioned in Schedule 'B' and Schedule
'C' of the plaint.
·
. . 2. Al the outset, the following genealogical table is being set ~ut to
enable a clear and easy understanding of the facts and the findings with
·. regard to the entitlement of the parties that would be arrived at in the · D
course of the deliberations that follow.
Fuchan Mah1o~died 1940
Wife Puniya Devi:.. died 1967
I
-------------------------·
1.
Mithu Sao (son)
(died 1961)
!
1.
Ugni Devi (daughter)
(died 1995)
!
----------------------
,
I
Jagar-·
nath
!
Parasnath
Dharamnath
<Appellants)
--------------------------
Temni (1 11 wife)
!
·---------------------
!
Bilaso Devi (2"" Wife)
I
--------------------.
I
-
I
I
I
Ra:mnath
Kashinath ·
Duchwa
·.
Govardhan
Jagdish
Datdeo
Sarib.··
CAppellantsl
· fRespondentsl
3. The case of the respondents pl~intiffs is that Fuchan Mahto
(died in 1940), the common ancestor of the parties had a son Muthu Sao
E
F
G
H
I;!
IJ]
I
816
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 2 S.C.R..
who died in the year 1961. Mithu Sa9 had two wives, namely, Temiii (I•
wife) and Bilaso Devi (2"' wife). At, the time of the filing of the suit for
partition Temni (I" wife) was no/more,, The defendants in the suit
Ramnath, Kashinath Buchwa are the sons and daughter of Mithu Sao
and Temni (I• wife) whereas the plaintiffs Govardhan, Jagdish, Baldeo
and Sarita are the sons and daughter ofMithu Sao and Bilaso Devi (2"'
wife), who is a co-plaintiff.
4. According to the plaintiffs, they along with the defendants
constituted a joint Hindu Mitakshra familywhich owned ancestral land
recorded under Khata No.19 of village Lapanga in the district of
Hazaribagh. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the joint family also
acquired lands in several other villages in the name of one or other
members of the joint family. According to the plaintiffs, the parties
continued in joint possession of the properties, both ancestral and
subsequently acquired. As the members of joint family had increased it
became inconvenient to continue to remain joint. Hence the suit for a
decree of partition was filed.
5. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, 011 the ground
that lhere was .no unity of title and possession between the parties.
According to the defendants, after the death of Mithu sao in the year,
1961 or even before his death there was disruption in the family on
account of the fact that Mithu Sao had married twice. There were
serious differences in the family and the children of the first wife Tenmi
separated from Mithu Sao. It is the case of the defendants that after the
death of Mithu Sao the children of first wife and second wife again
separated. The defendants pleaded that as there was no joint family in
existence both the parties had separate earnings and only the ancestral
lands ofKhata No.19 are available for partition, major portion of which
had been acquired by the Government and compensation amount had
been evenly distributed amongst the parties according to their respective
shares. According to the defendants, the other items of the Schedule
property are self-acquired properties which are not liable to be partitioned.
6. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs
are entitled to the extent of 63-1/2 paise share in the Schedule 'B' property;
items I to 8 of village Labaga in Schedule 'C'; items I and 2 of village
Rasda in Schedule 'C'; and items I to 8 of village Hafuwa in Schedule
'C' properties and 12 paise share in the properties mentioned in Item
.
.
No.9 of village Hafuwa in Schedule 'C' properties. The defendants
appellants, on the other hand, were found to be entitled to the remaining
'
\,_
AM NATH SAO@ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO
817
R
.
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
,,
.
37.112 paise in tl1.e Schedule 'B' property and items I to 8 of village ·A
Labaga; items. (and 2 of village Rasda; and items I to 8 of village
Hafuwa in Schedule 'C' properties. By the said decree which has been
atlirmed in appeal by the High Court, so far as the property mentioned
in item No.9 of Schedule 'C' is concerned, 12 and 11 paise share therein
in favour of the plaintiffs and department have been granted. As the
said property i.e. item No.9 of Schedule 'C' pertain to 23 paise share of
the five sons of Muthu Sao in property purchased by them along. with
other persons by 8 different sale deeds, the said property is not the
subject matter of the present appeal in its truncated form, as indicated
earlier.
7. This Court while issuing notice in the present appeal confined
the area of scrutiny to the question of"al location of sl~ares as regards to
the properties found to bejointfamily properties". In view of the aforesaid
limited notice, the issue with regard to the shares of the respective parties
in the joint family properties alone will have to be determined in the
present appeal and no question ofreopening the concurrent findings of
the learned forums below with regard to the existence of joint family
and the holding of properties jointly can arise .
. ; . 8. We have heard the learned counsels fot the parties.
9. Fuchan Mahto died in the year 1940. At the time of his death,
the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred
to as "the 1937 Act") was in force. Section 3(2) of the 1937 Act which
is relevant for the present case provided as follows:
"3(2) When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu iaw other
than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies having at
•
the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property,
his widow shall, subjectto the provisions of sub-section (3), have
in the property the same interest as he himself had;"
10. Under Section 3(2) of the 1937 Act, on the death ofFuchan
Mahto his widow/wife Puniya Devi became entitled to a share in the
joint family property. However, the share of Puniya Devi would remain
undetermined till such time when there is a partition in the family. This
is what has been held by this Court in Potti LakshmiPer11111a/l11 vs.
Pot/I Krishna V<?namma1• The relevant paragraph in the said judgment
to the above effect is extracted below:
1(1965)1 SCR26
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
.
'
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017]2 S.C.R.
A
"According to the theory underlying the Hindu la~ihe \~id ow of
a deceased Hindu i~
1
his surviving half and, therefore, as long as
she is alive he must be def'med to continue to exist in her_person.
This surviving half,had under the Hindu law texts no right to claim
a partition of the property of the family to which her husband ·
belonged. But the Act of 1937 has conferred that right upon her.
When the Act says that she will have the same right as her husband
had it clearly means that she would be entitled to be allotted the
same share as her husband would have been entitled to had he
liyed on the date on which she claimed partition."
B
c
D
E
F
G
11. On the date of death offuchan Mahto, his son Mithu Sao did
not have any male issue. However, the joint family in question can be
understood to have continued with Mithu Sao as the 'Karta' and the
property continued to belong to tlie joint family. The above view would
find support from the decision of this Court in Goirfi Buddanna v.
Co111111issioner of/11co111e Tax. Mvsore. Bangalore', relevant portion
of which is extracted below:,
~Property of a joint family therefore does not cease to belong to
the family merely because the family is represented by a single
coparcener who possesses rights which an owner of property
may possess. In the case in hand the property which yielded the
income originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family. On the
death ofBuddappa the family which included a widow and females
born in the family was represented by Buddanna alone but the
property still continued to belong to that undivided family and
income received iherefrom was taxable as income of the Hindu
undivided family." ·
12. The position, therefore, prior to the coming into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that the joint family continued on the
death ofFuchan Mahto with Mithu Sao as the sole coparcener and the
joint family properties continued to be!on'g to the family and furthermore
. . Puniya Devi continued to have a share in the prop.erty.
13 .At this stage, tl1e provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act, I 956 will require a specific notice which is extracted below:
"6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.- when a male
Hindu dies. after the commencement of this Act, havingat the
H
'(1966) 3 SCR 224
.
'-
T
I'
\
T
r
..
RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO
819
,
(RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
,
••
~ tillJe 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:.
Provided that,' if the deceased had left him surviving a female
relative specified in class-I of the Schedule or a male relative
· specified in that class who claims through such female relative,
the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property
:~shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case
rnay be, under this Act and not by survivors.hip.
. Explanation.!-' For the purposes of this section, the interest
.. of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the
share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a
partition of the property had taken place immediately before his
"death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or
not ..
Explanation 2.-Nothingcontained in the proviso to this section
shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself
.. from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of
his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to
.'·therein."·
14. After the death ofMithu Sao in the year 1961, following the
provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a notional
partition just before the death ofMithu Sao will have to be presumed.
. There would; therefore, be 8 sharers in the joint family properties and
the share of each one of them would be as follows:
·
MithuSao
118
Bilaso Devi (wife)
1/8
Puniya Devl(mother)
1/8
Ramnath (son)
118
Kashinath (son)
l/S
Goverdhan (son)
118
· · Jagdish (son)
118
· Baldeo (son)
1/8
A
B
G
D
E
F
G .
H
820
A
B
•
c
D
l
E
F
G
.... ,,...
!1
-
\
H
'
. ,
1
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
-
[2017] 2 S.C.R.
'
Insofar as Bilso Devi, the wife of Mithu Sao is concerned, she
would be entitled to I/8th share of the joint family properties upon the
notional partition being given effect to. The share of the widow of a
Hindu male coparcener following a notional partition has been recognized
by this Court in· Guru pad Khandapva Magdum versus Hirabai
Khandappa Magdum and others'. Paragraph 9 and 14 of the· report in
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum (supra) may be usefully noted herein
below:
"9. The next step, equally important though not equally easy to
work out, is to find out the share which the deceased had in the
coparcenary property because after all, the plaintiff has a I/6th
interest in that share. Explanation I which contains the formula
for determiniiig the share of the deceased creates a fiction by
providing that the interest of a Hindu Mistakshara coparcener
. shall be deemed to be the share in tbe property that would have
been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place
immediately before his death. One must, therefore, imagine a state
· of affairs in which a little prior to Khandappa's death, a partition
of tl1e coparcenary property was effected between him and other
members of the coparcenary. Though the plaintiff. not being a
coparcener. was not entitled to demand partition yet. if a partition
. were to take place between her husband and his two sons. she
would be entitled to receive a share equal to that of a son. (see
Mu Ila's Hindu Law. Fourteenth Edition. page 403. para 315). In a
partition between Khandappa and his two sons, there would be •
four sharers in the coparcenary property, the fourth being
Khandappa's wife, the plaintiff. Khandappa would have therefore
got a I/4th share in ihe coparcenary property on the hypothesis of
a partition between himself and, his sons.
xxx xxx xxx
14. The interpretation which we are placing upon the provisions
of section 6 its proviso and explanation 1 thereto will further the
·legislative intent in regard to the enlargement of the share of female
heirs, qualitatively and quantitatively. The Hindu Law of
Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 conferred heirship rights on
the son's daughter, daughter's daughter and sister in all areas
where the Mitakshara law prevailed. Section 3 df the Hindu
Women's Rights.to Property Act, 1937, speaking broadly,
• (1978) 3 sec 383
'
-
!MM NATH SAO@ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO
821
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
conferred upon the Hindu widow the right to a share in the joint
A
. family property as also a right to demand partition like any male
member of the family. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides
. by section 14(1) that any property possessed by a female Hindu,
whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act,
shall be held by her as a full owner thereof and not as a limited · 8
owner. By restricting the operation of the fiction created by
ExpJanation I in the manner suggested by the appellant, we shall
be taking a retrograde step, putting back as it were the clock of
· social reform which has enabled the Hindu Woman to acquire an
equal status with males in matters of property. Even assuming
that two interpretations of Exp \anation I are reasonably possible,
C
we must prefer that interpretation which will further the intention
of the legislature and remedy the injustice from wh.ich the Hindu
. women have suffered over the years."
[underlining is ours]
15. Next aspect of the case is with regard to the I/8th share of
Mithu Sao and the devolution of the said share to the surviving members
of the joint family. In this regard, it can be held without any difficulty
that under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
the share ofMithu Sao in the joint family property (\/8th) would devolve
by intestate succession, in the absence ofa will, in the following manner.
Bilaso Devi
_I_
_I_
Puniya Devi
Ramnath
Kashinath
Goverdhan
J agd ish
B aldeo
Buchwa Devi
Sarita
8x9
72
I
8x9
_J_
8x9
_1_
8x9
_J_
8x9
I
-g,9
I
8x9
_J_
8x9
_J_
8x9
=
=
_I_
72
_J_
72
_1_
72
_J_
72
I
-12
_I_
72
_J_
72
_J_
72
D
E
F
G
H
·,,

•
822
A
B
·c
D
E
·p
G
1
-. H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
c201112 s.c.R.
···j
16. Thus after 1961 Puniya Devi ~eing the widow of Fuchan Mah to
had I/8th plus 1172lh share in the joint family property, nainely, I 0172•
share. Puniya Devi died in the year I 967 leaving behind her daughter
Ugni Devi and the children of her predeceased son Mithu Sao. Ugni
Devi will be entitled to receive ~ne-half share of Puniya Devi i.e. halfof
10/72'" share i.e. 101144"' share .. The remaining 101144"' share that
wouid go to the branch ofMithu Sao will have to be divided amongst 8
heirs ofMithu Sao, namely, the widow and the'seven children. Thus, the
aforesaid I 01144"' share would devolve in the following nianner.'
Bilaso Devi
I
x
~10_
=
10
-8144
. T152
Ramnath
_I_
x
_10_
=
10
8
144
T152
Kashinath
..L
x
-1.!L.
=
-1.!L.
8
.-
144.
1152
Goverdhan
..L
x
-1.!L.
=
-1.!L.
8
144
1152 .
Jagdish
..L
x
-1.!L.
=
-1.!L.
8
144
,, 1152
•·/ . 10
Baldeo
I '
x
=
10
-8144-.
.·. T152
Buchwa Devi
I
x
_10_
=
_10_
-8144
1152
Sarita
..L
x
-1.!L.
=
-1.!L.
8
144
1152
I 7. Consequently the share of each of the parties would be as
follows:
BilasoDevi
_L
+
_!_ + _lQ_ = 14.76%
8
72
1152
Ramnath
_L
+ ._!_
-1: _lQ_ = 14.76%.
8
72
I 152
Kashinath
_L
+
_!_ + _lQ_ = 14.76%
8
72
I 152
Goverdhan
_L + _!_ + - _lQ_ = 14.76% .
8
.72
1152
. '
'
•
•
RAM NATH' SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO
·
·;;
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
~
Jagdish
_!_
+
_J_ + ..llL. = 14.76%
8
72
1152
Baldeo
_!_
+
_J_ + ..llL. = 14.76%
8
72
1152
Buchwa: Devi
_Q_
+
_J_ + ..llL. = 2.25%
0
72
1.152
Sarita
_Q_
+
_J_ + ..llL. = 2.25%
0
72
1152
UgniDevi
.lQ_
= 6.94%
144
Thus cakulated the share of the appellants would be : .
14.76 (Ramnath) + 14.76 (Kashinath) + 2.25 (Buchwa Devi)+
6.94 (LRs. of Ugni Devi)= 38.1%
18. In view of the above, it will be necessary to modify the decree
passed by the learned trial Court as affirmed by the High Court by holding
that the appellants -defendants are entitled to 38.1%.share in the joint
family property instead of37.5% as ordered by the courts below.
19. The appeal consequently is allowed to the extent indicated
above and with the aforesaid modification of the decree passed by the
learned trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.
;>evika Gujral
Appeal allowed.
823
A
c
D
E