Shailndra Kumar Jain & Ors v. Maya Prakash Jain & Ors: Supreme Court Allows Daughter’s Impleadment in Family Property Dispute

COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JUDGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE

 

Shailndra Kumar Jain & Ors v. Maya Prakash Jain & Ors: Supreme Court Allows Daughter’s Impleadment in Family Property Dispute

 

Class I Heir Must Be Included

 

Lower Court Orders Set Aside

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 21, 2026

 

In Shailndra Kumar Jain and Others v. Maya Prakash Jain and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3587 of 2019, decided on 9 April 2019), the Supreme Court of India addressed a crucial question of succession law and family property disputes. The case revolved around whether a daughter, who had been a defendant in an earlier 1966 partition suit, could be impleaded in a subsequent suit among her brothers based on later family settlements and alleged Wills of their parents.

Also read this complete resource on Supreme Court judgments covering wills.

The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra held that the daughter was a necessary party to the proceedings. As a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, her rights in the estate would be directly affected depending on whether the alleged Wills were ultimately proved or disproved. The Court emphasized that exclusion of such a party would undermine the fairness of adjudication, as succession rights cannot be determined without including all legal heirs.

By allowing her impleadment application, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the lower courts that had rejected her plea. This ruling ensures that her succession rights are protected and that the dispute will be adjudicated with all necessary parties present.

The judgment is significant as it reinforces the principle that daughters, as Class I heirs, hold equal succession rights and must be included in property disputes involving family settlements and Wills. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to gender equality in inheritance matters and ensures that no heir is sidelined in succession litigation.

 

 

 

For More, Read Here the Summary of the Judgement from the Book:  WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, read below or open page no 436, Chapter 14.1 in the book. (Online book purchase link available here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart

 

 

	Case Summary	:	Shailndra Kumar Jain and Others v. Maya Prakash Jain and Others
	Court	:	Supreme Court of India
	Citations	:	(2019) 04 SC CK 0049: Civil Appeal No. 3587 of 2019.
	Link	:	https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/982874/shailndra-kumar-jain-and-others-vs-maya-prakash-jain-and-oth/
	Decided on	:	09 April 2019
	Coram	:	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, (Division Bench)
	Relevant Paragraphs	:	Para Nos. 2 – 12

1.         Facts of the Case:

(i).        Vinay Prakash Jain filed Suit No. 92 of 1966 before the Sub-Judge I Class, Delhi for declaration of ownership of certain properties said to have fallen to his share after a family partition with his parents (Amba Prasad and Smt. Devi Jain) and brothers. A compromise decree dated 23 Feb 1966 declared him owner of specified properties.

(ii).       Later, Maya Prakash Jain (Defendant No. 5 in the 1966 Suit) filed Suit No. 464 of 2006 at Meerut claiming rights under a further family settlement of 05 Nov 2005. Srikanta Jain (Defendant No. 8 in the 1966 Suit) applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as defendant in the 2006 suit, asserting that as a daughter and Class I heir she was entitled to a share in the parents’ estate. Her application was dismissed by the trial court and the High Court on revision. Her legal heirs appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

2.         Law Points Involved:

(i).        Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (impleadment of necessary and proper parties)

(ii).       Right of daughters as Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

(iii).      Effect of prior partition decree and family settlement on rights of female heirs

Related disputes can be seen in family settlement and consent decree cases.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

(i).        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order I Rule 10;

(ii).       Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 8 and Schedule I;

(iii).      Principles of Hindu Law (Mulla, 22nd Ed., p. 496).

 

4.         Judgments Referred:

Lakshmi Chand Khajuria v. Ishroo Devi, (1977) 03 SC CK 0057.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/649824/lakshmi-chand-khajuria-and-others-appellant-hash-ishroo-devi-respondent]

 

5.         Obiter Dicta:

Absence of challenge to the 1966 decree did not bar the daughter’s claim in respect of her parents’ properties; even if a prior family settlement was accepted, the daughters retain succession rights on the parents’ death intestate.

 

6.         Ratio Decidendi:

A daughter who is a Class I heir is a necessary and proper party to any subsequent suit relating to her parents’ properties if the Will propounded by other heirs is yet to be proved. Failure to implead such heir renders the proceeding defective. Courts below erred in rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

 

7.         Final Ruling:

Appeal allowed. Orders of trial court and High Court set aside. Application for impleadment by Srikanta Jain allowed. Daughters being Class I heirs are necessary and proper parties where succession depends on proof of Wills. No order as to costs.

 

8.         Gist / Dispute & Final Decision:

The core dispute concerned whether a daughter (ex-Defendant No. 8 in the 1966 partition suit) was entitled to be impleaded in a subsequent suit among her brothers based on a later family settlement and alleged Wills of the