Judgment sc-2017-2-813-823

· ·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 8

any difficulty. that under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu I! c Succession Act, I956 the share of 'MS' in the joint family property RANJAN GOGOi, J. I. The appellants are the defendants in a (1/8th) would devolve by intestate succession among surviving partition suit filed by the.respondents, as plaintiffs, seeking partition. of c members of the joint family. Thus after I96I, 'PD' being the widow .. various properties specifically mentioned in Schedule 'B' and Schedule I of '.FM' had I/8th plus I/72th share in the joint family property, 'C' of the plaint. · I namely, 10/72th sl1are. 'PD' died in tl1e year I967 leaving behind . . 2. Al the outset, the following genealogical table is being set ~ut to ! D lier daugl1ter 'UD' and the cl1ildren of lier predeceased son 'MS'. enable a clear and easy understanding of the facts and the findings with 'UD' will be entitled to receive one-half share of 'PD' i.e. l1alf of ·. regard to the entitlement of the parties that would be arrived at in the · D ' 10/72th share i.e. 10/I44th share. The remaining 10/I44th share course of the deliberations that follow. that would go to the branch of'MS' will have to be divided amongst Fuchan Mah1o~died 1940 8 heirs of 'MS' 1 namely, tl1e widow and the seven children. Tl1e Wife Puniya Devi:.. died 1967 appellants-defendants are entitled to 38.I% share in the joint I E family property instead of 37.5% as ordered by the courts below. · -------------------------·

1Copy pinpoint1. 1. [Paras I5, I6, I8] (82I-D-E, II; 822-A-D; 823-D] · E Mithu Sao (son) Ugni Devi (daughter) (died 1961) (died 1995) Patti Lakshmi Perumallu' v. Patti Krishna Venamma ! ! (1965] 1 SCR 26; Gow/i Buddmma v. Co111111issio11er of ,. ----------------------! Income Tax, Mysore, Bangalore [19661 3 .SCR ·224;. F Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa ... Jagar-· Parasnath Dharamnath nath <Appellants) , Mdgdum and Ors. (1978) 3 SCC 383 : (1978] 3 SCR . F 761'- relied on. . . I ' Case Law Reference .. --------------------------! G (1965] 1 SCR 26 Temni (1 11 wife) Bilaso Devi (2"" Wife) relied on. Para 10 ! I J1966_1 3 SCR 224 relied on ·--------------------- --------------------. I - I I I G Para 11 J19711J 3 SCR 761· Ra:mnath Kashinath · Duchwa ·. Govardhan Jagdish Datdeo Sarib.·· relied on Para.14 CAppellantsl · fRespondentsl No. i I IO'-

3Copy pinpoint3. The case of the respondents pl~intiffs is that Fuchan Mahto CIVIL of2006: APPELLATE · · · JURISDICTION: · ·· Civil Appeal H (died in 1940), the common ancestor of the parties had a son Muthu Sao H

817 \II RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.. . [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] I i, J7-l/2 paise in " t~.eSchedul~ 'B' property and .items I to 8 of v~!lage ·A A who died in the year 1961. Mithu Sa9 had two wives, namely, Temiii (I• Labaga; items 1·and 2 of village Rasda; and items I to 8 of village ii 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 Hafuwa in Schedule 'C' properties. By the said decree which has been at1irmed in appeal by the High Court, so far as the property mentioned "1· Ramnath, Kashinath Buchwa are the sons and daughter of Mithu Sao in item No.9 of Schedule 'C' is concerned, 12 and 11 paise share therein :I ' oft~1e ~laintiffs ~een grant~d. I and Temni (I• wife) whereas the plaintiffs Govardhan, Jagdish, Baldeo I i and Sarita are the sons and daughter ofMithu Sao and Bilaso Devi (2"' in favour and department have As the B said property 1.e.1tem No.9 of Schedule 'C' pertamto 23 pa1se share of B I wife), who is a co-plaintiff.

4Copy pinpoint4. According to the plaintiffs, they along with the defendants the five sons of Muthu Sao in property purchased by them along with otherperson~ by' 8 different sale deeds, the said property is not the constituted a joint Hindu Mitakshra familywhich owned ancestral land subject matter of the present appeal in its truncated form, as indicated recorded under Khata No.19 of village Lapanga in the district of ii Hazaribagh. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the joint family also earlier.7. This Court while issuing notice in the present appeal confined C 11, c acquired lands in several other villages in the name of one or other the area of scrutiny to the question of"al location of sl~ares as regards to members of the joint family. According to the plaintiffs, the parties the properties found to be joint family properties". In view of the aforesaid I continued in joint possession of the properties, both ancestral and limited notice, the issue with regard to the shares of the respective parties subsequently acquired. As the members ofjoint family had increased it in the joint family properties alone will have to be determined in the :I1, became inconvenient to continue to remain joint. Hence the suit for a present appeal and no question of reopening the concurrent findings of decree of partition was filed. the learned forums below with regard to the existence of joint family \,, D :! 5. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, 011 the ground I and the holding of properties jointly can arise. that lhere was .no unity of title and possession between the parties. . , 8. We have heard the learned counsels for' the parties. i According to the defendants, after the death of Mithu sao in the year, 9. Fuchan Mahto died in the year 1940. At the time of his death, 1961 or even before his death there was disruption in the family on the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred account of the fact that Mithu Sao had married twice. There were E serious differences in the family and the children of the first wife Tenmi

1. to as "the 1937 Act") was in force. Section 3(2) of the 1937 Act which separated from Mithu Sao. It is the case of the defendants that after the is re.levant for the present case provided as follows: death of Mithu Sao the children of first wife and second wife again "3(2) When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu '1aw other separated. The defendants pleaded that as there was no joint family in than the payabhaga school or by customary law dies having at existence both the parties had separate earnings and only the ancestral the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, F F lands ofKhata No.19 are available for partition, major portion of which • his widow shall, subjectto the provisions of sub-section (3), have had been acquired by the Government and compensation amount had in the property the same interest as he himself had;" been evenly distributed amongst the parties according to their respective 10. Under Section 3(2) of the 1937 Act, on the death ofFuchan shares. According to the defendants, the other items of the Schedule Mahto his widow/wife Puniya Devi became entitled to a share in the property are self-acquired properties which are not liable to be partitioned. joint family property. However, the share of Puniya Devi would remain G

6Copy pinpoint6. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs undetermined till such time when there is a partition in the family. This G are entitled to the extent of 63-1/2 paise share in the Schedule 'B' property; is what has been held by this Court in Potti LakshmiPerumallu vs. items I to 8 of village Labaga in Schedule 'C'; items I and 2 of village Potti Krishna Venamma'. The relevant paragraph in the said judgment Rasda in Schedule 'C'; and items I to 8 of village Hafuwa in Schedule to t11e above effect is extracted below: 'C' properties and 12 paise share . in the properties mentioned . in Item H No.9 of village Hafuwa in Schedule 'C' properties. The defendants 1 (1965) I SCR26 H appellants, on the other hand, were found to be entitled to the remaining \,_

I;! IJ] =.,,.--=-.=:::-----~---~r;.:-~. ~·-

I

• 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 B 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.

7Copy pinpoint7. This Court while issuing notice in the present appeal confined c the area of scrutiny to the question of"al location of sl~ares as regards to the properties found to bejointfamily properties". In view ofthe 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.

9Copy pinpoint9. 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;"

10Copy pinpoint10. 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<?namma 1• The relevant paragraph in the said judgment to the above effect is extracted below: 1 (1965)1 SCR26 H

818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017]2 S.C.R. T RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO , , (RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 819

A "According to the theory underlying the Hindu la~ihe \~id ow of ••~ tillJe ofhis death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, A 'his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the a deceased Hindu i~ his surviving half and, therefore, as long as I' 1

· surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with she is alive he must be def'med to continue to exist in her_person.

I I 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 · ! this act:. Provided that,' if the deceased had left him surviving a female B belonged. But the Act of 1937 has conferred that right upon her. relative specified in class-I of the Schedule or a male relative 1111 • B When the Act says that she will have the same right as her husband · specified in that class who claims through such female relative, had it clearly means that she would be entitled to be allotted the \ the interest ofthe deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property I same share as her husband would have been entitled to had he I :~shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case l II . liyed on the date on which she claimed partition."

11Copy pinpoint11. On the date of death offuchan Mahto, his son Mithu Sao did rnay be, under this Act and not by survivors.hip. . Explanation.!-' For the purposes of this section, the interest G 11 i c not have any male issue. However, the joint family in question can be .. of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the 11 understood to have continued with Mithu Sao as the 'Karta' and the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a 11 property continued to belong to tlie joint family. The above view would partition of the property had taken place immediately before his <! I! find support from the decision of this Court in Goirfi Buddanna v. "death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or II' I I. ' . ' D Co111111issioner of/11co111e Tax. Mvsore. Bangalore', relevant portion of which is extracted below:, not.. Explanation 2.-Nothingcontained in the proviso to this section D I ji I' ~Property of a joint family therefore does not cease to belong to shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself ,. I the family merely because the family is represented by a single .. from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of 11 •11 :11 coparcener who possesses rights which an owner of property his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to . ' E may possess. In the case in hand the property which yielded the income originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family. On the .'·therein."· E

14. After the death ofMithu Sao in the year 1961, following the death ofBuddappa the family which included a widow and females provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a notional born in the family was represented by Buddanna alone but the partition just before the death ofMithu Sao will have to be presumed. property still continued to belong to that undivided family and .There would; therefore, be 8 sharers in the joint family properties and income received iherefrom was taxable as income of the Hindu

r the share of each one of them would be as follows: · F undivided family." · F MithuSao 118

12Copy pinpoint12. The position, therefore, prior to the coming into force of the 1/8 ~ Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that the joint family continued on the Bilaso Devi (wife) death ofFuchan Mahto with Mithu Sao as the sole coparcener and the .. 1/8 Puniya Devl(mother) joint family properties continued to be!on'g to the family and furthermore 1.

. .Puniya Devi continued to have a share in the prop.erty. Ramnath (son) 118 G. G l/S 13 .At this stage, tl1e provisions of Section 6 ofthe Hindu Succession Kashinath (son) Act, I 956 will require a specific notice which is extracted below: Goverdhan (son) 118 "6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.- when a male · · Jagdish (son) 118 Hindu dies. after the commencement of this Act, havingat the · Baldeo (son) 1/8 H H '(1966) 3 SCR 224 . '-

i :1· ' .

LI

818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017]2 S.C.R. T RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO , , (RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 819

A "According to the theory underlying the Hindu la~ihe \~id ow of ••~ tillJe ofhis death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, A 'his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the a deceased Hindu i~ his surviving half and, therefore, as long as I' 1

· surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with she is alive he must be def'med to continue to exist in her_person.

I I 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 · ! this act:. Provided that,' if the deceased had left him surviving a female B belonged. But the Act of 1937 has conferred that right upon her. relative specified in class-I of the Schedule or a male relative 1111 • B When the Act says that she will have the same right as her husband · specified in that class who claims through such female relative, had it clearly means that she would be entitled to be allotted the \ the interest ofthe deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property I same share as her husband would have been entitled to had he I :~shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case l II . liyed on the date on which she claimed partition."

11. On the date of death offuchan Mahto, his son Mithu Sao did rnay be, under this Act and not by survivors.hip. . Explanation.!-' For the purposes of this section, the interest G 11 i c not have any male issue. However, the joint family in question can be .. of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the 11 understood to have continued with Mithu Sao as the 'Karta' and the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a 11 property continued to belong to tlie joint family. The above view would partition of the property had taken place immediately before his <! I! find support from the decision of this Court in Goirfi Buddanna v. "death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or II' I I. ' . ' D Co111111issioner of/11co111e Tax. Mvsore. Bangalore', relevant portion of which is extracted below:, not.. Explanation 2.-Nothingcontained in the proviso to this section D I ji I' ~Property of a joint family therefore does not cease to belong to shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself ,. I the family merely because the family is represented by a single .. from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of 11 •11 :11 coparcener who possesses rights which an owner of property his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to . ' E may possess. In the case in hand the property which yielded the income originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family. On the .'·therein."· E

14Copy pinpoint14. After the death ofMithu Sao in the year 1961, following the death ofBuddappa the family which included a widow and females provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a notional born in the family was represented by Buddanna alone but the partition just before the death ofMithu Sao will have to be presumed. property still continued to belong to that undivided family and .There would; therefore, be 8 sharers in the joint family properties and income received iherefrom was taxable as income of the Hindu

r the share of each one of them would be as follows: · F undivided family." · F MithuSao 118

12. The position, therefore, prior to the coming into force of the 1/8 ~ Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that the joint family continued on the Bilaso Devi (wife) death ofFuchan Mahto with Mithu Sao as the sole coparcener and the .. 1/8 Puniya Devl(mother) joint family properties continued to be!on'g to the family and furthermore 1.

. .Puniya Devi continued to have a share in the prop.erty. Ramnath (son) 118 G. G l/S 13 .At this stage, tl1e provisions of Section 6 ofthe Hindu Succession Kashinath (son) Act, I 956 will require a specific notice which is extracted below: Goverdhan (son) 118 "6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.- when a male · · Jagdish (son) 118 Hindu dies. after the commencement of this Act, havingat the · Baldeo (son) 1/8 H H '(1966) 3 SCR 224 . '-

i :1· ' .

LI

'1'1'!111

itAM NATH SAO@ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO 821 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - [2017] 2 S.C.R. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] ' A conferred upon the Hindu widow the right to a share in the joint A ' the wife of Mithu Sao is concerned, she Insofar as Bilso Devi, . family property as also a right to demand partition like any male would be entitled to I/8th share of the joint family properties upon the member of the family. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides notional partition being given effect to. The share of the widow of a by section 14(1) that any property possessed by a female Hindu, Hindu male coparcener following a notional partition has been recognized whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, by this Court in· Guru pad Khandapva Magdum versus Hirabai shall be held by her as a full owner thereof and not as a limited · B Khandappa Magdum and others'. Paragraph 9 and 14 of the· report in B owner. By restricting the operation of the fiction created by Gurupad Khandappa Magdum (supra) may be usefully noted herein ExpJanation I in the manner suggested by the appellant, we shall below: be taking a retrograde step, putting back as it were the clock of "9. The next step, equally important though not equally easy to · social reform which has enabled the Hindu Woman to acquire an • work out, is to find out the share which the deceased had in the equal status with males in matters of property. Even assuming coparcenary property because after all, the plaintiff has a I/6th that two interpretations of Explanation I are reasonably possible, c c interest in that share. Explanation I which contains the formula we must prefer that interpretation which will further the intention for determiniiig the share of the deceased creates a fiction by of the legislature and remedy the injustice from which the Hindu providing that the interest of a Hindu Mistakshara coparcener . women have suffered over the years." . shall be deemed to be the share in tbe property that would have [underlining is ours] been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place

15Copy pinpoint15. Next aspect of the case is with regard to the \/8th share of D immediately before his death. One must, therefore, imagine a state D Mithu Sao and the devolution of the said share to the surviving members · of affairs in which a little prior to Khandappa's death, a partition l of tl1e coparcenary property was effected between him and other members of the coparcenary. Though the plaintiff. not being a 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 coparcener. was not entitled to demand partition yet. if a partition . were to take place between her husband and his two sons. she by intestate succession, in the absence ofa will, in the following manner. E E would be entitled to receive a share equal to that of a son. (see Bilaso Devi I 8'9 ~ I -12 Mu Ila's Hindu Law. Fourteenth Edition. page 403. para 315). In a I I partition between Khandappa and his two sons, there would be • Puniya Devi -12 four sharers in the coparcenary property, the fourth being 8'9 .J_ .J_ Khandappa's wife, the plaintiff. Khandappa would have therefore Ramnath 72 F 8x9 got a I/4th share in ihe coparcenary property on the hypothesis of = _1_ F Kashinath .J_ a partition between himself and, his sons. 8x9 72 xxx xxx xxx .J_ Goverdhan .J_

14. The interpretation which we are placing upon the provisions 8x9 72 of section 6 its proviso and explanation 1 thereto will further the I = I J agd ish -&x9 -12 G ·legislative intent in regard to the enlargement of the share of female G heirs, qualitatively and quantitatively. The Hindu Law of I _I_ ....,,... D aldeo 8'9 72 Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 conferred heirship rights on the son's daughter, daughter's daughter and sister in all areas .J_ .J_ Buchwa Devi 72 where the Mitakshara law prevailed. Section 3 df the Hindu 8x9 .J_ .J_ Women's Rights.to Property Act, 1937, speaking broadly, Sarita 72 H 8x9 !1 - \ H • (1978) 3 sec 383 ' I / !' ~ . ,

i1:1

' - !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, 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 D 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. E Bilaso Devi _I_ _I_ 8x9 72 Puniya Devi I _I_ 8x9 72 Ramnath _J_ _J_ 8x9 72 F Kashinath _1_ = _1_ 8x9 72 Goverdhan _J_ _J_ 8x9 72 J agd ish I = I -g,9 -12 G B aldeo I _I_ 8x9 72 Buchwa Devi _J_ _J_ 8x9 72 Sarita _J_ _J_ 8x9 72 H

~

~I 823 RAM NATH' SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. c201112 s.c.R. · !,; [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] A _J_ + _lQ_ = 14.76% ~ ···j __ I +

16Copy pinpoint16. Thus after 1961 Puniya Devi ~eing the widow of Fuchan Mah to Jagdish 72 1152 8 had I/8th plus 1172lh share in the joint family property, nainely, I 0172• + _lQ_ = 14.76% _L + _J_ 111: share. Puniya Devi died in the year I 967 leaving behind her daughter Baldeo 72 1152 8 l Ugni Devi and the children of her predeceased son Mithu Sao. Ugni = 2.25% j I B 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 BuchwaDevi _Q_ 0 + -· - I 72 + 10 l.152 B

I ·,, 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 Sarita _Q_ + _J_ + _lQ_ = 2.25% 1152 !ii! I aforesaid I01144"' share would devolve in the following nianner.' 0 72 = 6.94% II Ugni Devi l!L c Bilaso Devi I x ~10_ = 10 . 144 -8- 144 . T152 'I ·c Thus cakulated the share of the appellants would be: . Ramnath _I_ x _10_ = 10 'I 8 144 T152 14.76 (Ramnath) + 14.76 (Kashinath) + 2.25 (Buchwa Devi)+ Kashinath I •• 6.94 (LRs. of Ugni Devi)= 38.1% ..L x -1.!L. = -1.!L. . 8 .- 144. 1152 ' 18. In view of the above, it will be necessary to modify the decree D D Goverdhan ..L x -1.!L. = -1.!L. passed by the learned trial Court as affirmed by the High Court by holding 8 144 1152 . that the appellants - defendants are entitled to 3SJ% share in the joint Jagdish ..L x = family property instead of37.5% as ordered by the courts below. -1.!L. -1.!L. 8 144 ,, 1152 19. The appeal consequently is allowed. to the extent indicated •·/ Baldeo I' x . 10 = 10 above and with the aforesaid modification of the decree passed by the E -8- 144-. .·. T152 E \ learned trial Court as affirmed by the High Court. Buchwa Devi I x _10_ = _10_ -8- Appeal aUowed. 144 1152 ..,Devika Gujral 'I Sarita ..L x -1.!L. = -1.!L. i I. 8 144 1152 i ·p 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%. G 8 72 I 152 '• Kashinath _L + _!_ + _lQ_ = 14.76% 8 72 I 152 '- . !1 Goverdhan _L + _!_ +- _lQ_ = 14.76% . 1'' i1 -. H 8 .72 1152

- RAM NATH' SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU v. GOBERDHAN SAO 823 · ·;; [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] ~

Jagdish _!_ + _J_ + ..llL. = 14.76% A 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 c 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%

18Copy pinpoint18. 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.

19Copy pinpoint19. 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.