Case at a Glance
A daughter sued her mother, sisters and the buyers of family land for partition. The mother argued that she had obtained the property through a partition decree against her father-in-law and became its absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, and that the daughter had even signed the sale deeds in favour of her brothers-in-law as a witness. The trial court in Ashti and the District Court in Beed decreed the daughter’s suit. The Aurangabad Bench dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, holding that a decree obtained behind the daughter’s back cannot extinguish her right, and that signing the sale deeds as a witness did not bind her.
The plaintiff, Nandabai, is the daughter of the first appellant, Zumberbai. Zumberbai had obtained her husband’s property under a partition decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 173 of 1997, filed against her father-in-law. The suit property was later sold to appellants No. 4 and 5, Zumberbai’s sons-in-law, through two sale deeds (Exhibits 78 and 79). The appellants said that the plaintiff had signed these deeds as a witness and had received Rs. 1,50,000.
Nandabai filed Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2004 for partition. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti, District Beed decreed the suit on 28 July 2010, and the District Judge-1, Beed dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No. 125 of 2010 on 24 July 2015. The mother, the other daughters and the purchasers then filed a second appeal in the High Court, arguing that Zumberbai had become absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, so the daughter could not seek partition.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a partition decree obtained by the mother against her father-in-law, without the daughter being a party, and later sales to the sons-in-law, defeat the daughter’s claim for partition?
A Decree Behind Her Back, and a Witness Signature
The High Court held that the earlier partition decree “was obtained by appellant No.1 / Zumberbai behind the back of the respondent No.1 / Nandabai”, and that the daughter’s birth or coparcenary right “cannot be extinguished by that decree.” The sale deeds executed on the basis of that position were treated as illegal and not binding on her, so she did not need to file a separate suit for a declaration against them.
On the argument that the daughter signed the sale deeds, the Court said that “Merely because respondent No.1/plaintiff signed the sale deeds” the sales did not become binding on her, attributing the signature to the natural relationship between mother and daughter. Since the trial court and the first appellate court had recorded concurrent findings of fact, the High Court held that they could not be reopened in a second appeal and that no substantial question of law arose.
What the Court Actually Held
- A partition decree obtained by the mother behind the daughter’s back cannot extinguish the daughter’s birth or coparcenary right.
- Sale deeds in favour of the sons-in-law were held illegal and not binding on the daughter, and no separate declaratory suit was needed.
- Signing the sale deeds as a witness, in the context of a mother-daughter relationship, did not make the sales binding on her.
- Concurrent findings of fact could not be disturbed in second appeal; the appeal was dismissed in limine and the civil application disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Family property is often shifted through decrees or sales to which daughters are not parties; this judgment protects the daughter’s share in such cases.
- It shows that a relative’s signature as a witness on a sale deed is not automatically consent to the sale.
- It reiterates the narrow scope of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC where two courts agree on facts.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Daughters and Heirs
- A decree between other family members, to which you were not a party, does not by itself end your share.
- Signing a family document as a witness is not, by itself, giving up your rights.
For Counsel
- Plead specifically that an earlier decree was obtained behind the client’s back.
- Do not expect a second appeal to reopen concurrent findings of fact.
Key Takeaways
- A mother’s decree behind her daughter’s back did not defeat the daughter’s right.
- Sales to the sons-in-law did not bind the daughter.
- A witness signature is not consent to the sale.
- The second appeal was dismissed at the threshold.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a daughter’s share be defeated by a partition decree between her mother and grandfather?
In this case the High Court held that a decree obtained behind the daughter’s back could not extinguish her birth or coparcenary right.
If a daughter signs a sale deed as a witness, is she bound by the sale?
The Court held that merely signing as a witness did not make the sale binding on her, given the mother-daughter relationship.
Why did the High Court not hear the appeal in detail?
Two courts had concurrently found in the daughter’s favour on facts, and the High Court found no substantial question of law for a second appeal.
Conclusion
The family’s land had passed from a decree in a 1997 suit to sale deeds in favour of the sons-in-law, all without the daughter being a party. Three courts have now refused to let that chain of documents shut her out of a partition.
Practical takeaway: A decree or sale to which a co-heir was not a party is vulnerable to a partition suit, and a co-heir’s signature as a mere witness will not cure it.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com