Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai, 1993
Introduction
This is an appeal from a decree of the Allahabad High Court. The respondent (plaintiff) claimed for a possession of a village. The appellant challenged the validity of a will.
Character
Facts
Ganesh Prasad (who inherited property from his maternal grandfather. He made a will that such property will go to his son (Bindeshri Prasad) for his life and on his death it was to vest in his widow (GiriBala).
In execution of a decree for money obtained by a creditor against Bindeshri Prasad the village was sold by auction.
Bindeshri Prasad (son) brought the suit on the ground that the sale was vitiated by fraud. He died on 25th December 1926. Thereafter, Giribala was substituted as plaintiff by an application. She also asked for leave to amend the plaint and prayed that if the sale be held to be binding upon her husband, it should be declared to be inoperative as against her rights of ownership which was given by her father-in-law through the will.
Case History
1. Trial judge- allowed the amendment.
2. District court – Dismissed such amendment and suit.
3. High Court- allowed the amendment for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
Supreme Court
Arguments Of Appellant (defendants)
1. The property inherited by a daughter’s son from his maternal grandfather is ancestral property.
2. He relied on the Judgement of [Chelikani Venkayyamma Garu v. Chelikani Venkataramanayyamma]
“ the property which has descended from the maternal grandfather to his two grandsons.”
Arguments Of Respondent (plaintiff)
1. [Atar Singh v. Thakar Singh]- “The property must came from male collaterals and not from maternal grandfather.
Ratio Decidendi
1. Ancestors ordinarily include ascendant in the maternal as well as the paternal line.
2. Ancestral property under Hindu law includes only the property descended to the father from his male ancestor in the male line.
3. The Court in the case of Chelikan Venkayyamma Garu, limited it’s jurisdiction only to determine the scope of survivorship and held that a person who inherits property from maternal grandfather will have the benefit of survivorship. Neither the Court nor the parties were concerned about the nature of property i.e., whether it was ancestral or not.
Decisions
1. The estate inherited from one’s maternal grandfather cannot be held to be ancestral property.
2. Consequently, Ganesh Prasad (Father-in-law) had full power of disposal over that estate and the devise made by him (Ganesh) in favor of his daughter-in-law (GiriBala) could not be challenged by his son or any other person. On the death of her husband, the devise in her favor came into operation and she became the absolute owner of the village. The sale of that village in execution proceedings against her husband could not adversely affect her title.
3. Appeal Dismissed.
Summary
The estate which had descended from the maternal grandfather is not an ancestral property. In this case the court observed that Ganesh Prasad had inherited the property from his maternal grandfather therefore, no application of the rule of ancestral estate because such type of property requires the property descending to the father from his male ancestor in the male line or paternal line only not maternal line. The estate in hand of Ganesh Prasad had his separate property so he had full power to make the will. In such will he had given the right to his son on the village only for his life and on his (son) death it was to vest in his widow, GiriBala.
