SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD v. KRISHNA PRASAD & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Registration Act, 1908 ss. 17, 17(i)(b), 49
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 91
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ss. 53A, 54, 118
Judgment
property. The essential feature of ancestral property, according to Mitakshara Law, is that the sons, grandsons, and great grandsons of the person who inherits it, acquire an interest and the rights attached to such property at the moment of their birth. The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. After partition, the property in the hands of the son will continue to be the ancestral property and the natural or adopted son of that son will take interest in it and is entitled to it by survivorship. On facts, the properties acquired by defendant No.2 in the partition although are separate property qua other relations but it is a coparcenary property insofar as his sons and grandsons are concerned. There is a clear finding by the trial court that the properties are ancestral properties which have been divided as per the deed of partition. The property which had fallen to the share of defendant No.2 retained the character of a coparcenary property and the plaintiffs being his sons and grandson have a right in the said property. Hence, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. [Paras 12, 16][42-C- D; 44-E-F]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.