Dr. Manu Gouraha vs Chief Estate Officer Chhattisgarh Housing Board

Challenge in this petition is to the letter dated 15.03.2021 issued by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board wherein a HIG house has been recorded in

name of all the legal heirs of the deceased Narendra Kumar Gouraha by the Housing Board.

The short facts of this case are that late Shri N.K.Gouraha purchased a house i.e. HIG-128 at Danganiya from Housing Board under a Hire

Purchase Agreement and in such agreement, he nominated his son Manu Gouraha to be the nominee. N.K.Gouraha died on 10.08.2012 leaving behind

his wife Smt. Pushna Gouraha, son Dr. Manu Gouraha, petitioner herein and two daughters namely Mrs. Shefali Shrivastav and Mrs. Madhulika

Sharma. The petitioner/ son claimed his name to be mutated in respect of the house on the basis of nomination but since various claims were made,

the Housing Board observed that since dispute exists in between the legal heirs, as such, suitable decree may be obtained from the civil court and

eventually the name of all four heirs were recorded as the owner thereof.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the Hire Purchase Agreement, clause 12, in case of death of hirer, the name of the legal

heirs would be mutated and if some nominee is nominated then in such case the nominee would be entitled. He submits that in the Hire Purchase

Agreement Annexure 1, the petitioner's name was nominated; therefore, his name is required to be recorded. He would submit at the same time, the

wife of the deceased filed an application for mutation of name, therefore, the application given by the wife or daughters would not be within the

domain of the Housing Board to consider, as it would be against the clause 12 of the Hire Purchase Agreement. He would submit that the application

filed by the wife of the deceased and mother of the petitioner to record the name of all four heirs cannot be entertained and the petitioner cannot be

asked to approach the court as observed in its letter dated 15.03.2021. Therefore, the Housing Board be directed to record the name of the petitioner

alone as legal heir.

Learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board would submit that since dispute exists for ownership and mutation of the name, as such, in order

to protect the right of the heirs, the Housing Board decided to record four names of the legal heirs as against the property and no illegality can be

attached to it and the right of nomination will not override the right of heirs; therefore, the petitioner can approach to the competent civil court for

declaration and file civil suit, if so adviced.

Perused the documents attached with this petition and the Hire Purchase Agreement with the Housing Board which was entered on 04.02.1999

with Late N.K.Gouraha on which the petitioner placed reliance. Clause 12 reads as under :

The nomination form attached with this Hire Purchase Agreement purports that name of Manu Gouraha was nominated to be recorded after death

of N.K.Gouraha as against the house HIG- 128 at Danganiya. N.K.Gouraha died on 10.08.2012, thereafter, the dispute started.

After death of N.K.Gouraha, the wife Smt. Pushpa Gouraha filed an application on 06.03.2013 to record her name being the wife. In response to

such letter, the Housing Board wrote a letter to two daughters and the wife observing that since there is some dispute existing in between the legal

heirs; therefore, they may obtain the decree of declaration from the competent civil court, which is Annexure P-5. One of the daughter Mrs. Shefali

Shrivastav also emailed a letter on 09.11.2013 to the Estate Officer Housing Board that uptill the decree is obtained, the name of all the legal heirs be

recorded in respect of the house HIG-128. Thereafter, the Housing Board in 2015 & 2018 communicated to the wife and the daughters with a copy to

the petitioner herein that name of all the legal heirs would be recorded and they were asked to appear to sign certain papers so that all the four names

may be recorded. Lastly since the petitioner insisted that only his name may be recorded as per clause 12 of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the

impugned letter dated 15.03.2021 has been issued.

The facts of this case would suggest that there is no WILL by Late N.K.Gouraha in favour of the petitioner alone. Section 8 of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956, provides for general rules of succession in the case of males, which contemplates that the property of a male Hindu dying

intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of chapter II. Section 8, Clause (a) reads that devolution would be firstly, upon the heirs, being the

relatives specified in class I of the Schedule. Heirs of class I of the Schedule include son, daughter, widow and so on. Therefore, the petitioner being

son, two daughters namely Mrs. Shefali Shrivastav & Mrs. Madhulika Sharma and the widow Smt. Pushpa Gouraha would be class I heirs as per

Section 8. In absence of any WILL all the heirs would be jointly inherit the property, even if the Hire Purchase Agreement and the nomination of the

petitioner would not bind the other heirs so as to defeat the devolution as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in favour of class I heirs

who are the widow and daughters.

The Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Another v. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) I SCC 424 has discussed the right of nominee and observed

while dealing a case of life insurance, it held that the nominee's interest would be subject to claim of the assured under the law of succession.

Following, the analogy in the instant case, after death of Late N.K.Gouraha in whose name the house was held, it would become a part of estate

which would be governed by the law of succession. Since in this case, there is no testamentary succession, as such, all the heirs by application of

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would get equal right to the property left over i.e. estate of the deceased. The right of nominee, as such, cannot

be held to be over and above to the exclusion of the legal heirs and consequently the letter written by the Housing Board wherein all the names have

been recorded subject to any declaration from the civil court, no fault can be attributed to it. The petition is devoid of merit and accordingly it is

dismissed.