Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 648 (MP)

Ruchita Agnihotri v. Jagdish Prasad

2025-11-04

DEEPAK KHOT

body2025
ORDER : DEEPAK KHOT, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 9.10.2025 (annexure P/6) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chattarpur, in Case No.1127/Appeal/2024, whereby the order dated 24.1.2025 (annexure P/5) passed by the S.D.O. Chhattarpur and order dated 11.11.2024 (annexure P/4) passed by the Tahsildar have been set aside. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application for mutation has been filed by the petitioner claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of one deceased Deependra, which has been allowed vide order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Naib Tahsildar (annexure P/4). The said order was challenged by the respondent in First appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 24.1.2025 (annexure P-5). Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.1.2025, the respondent preferred second appeal, which was allowed by setting aside the orders dated 11.11.2024 and 24.1.2025, passed by the Naib Tahsildar and the S.D.O. respectively. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second appellate court has decided the appeal beyond its jurisdiction. The question of succession is not to be decided by the revenue authorities, which is required to be decided by the civil court. The second appellate authority, while applying the provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') has held that wife and the surviving mother are equally entitled of the estate of deceased Deependra. Further, that the disputed plot had been purchased by deceased Deependra, which was his self-acquired property and governed by section 8 of the Act of 1956. It is observed that in Schedule appended to the Act of 1956, in list of Class I heirs entries of wife and mother find place, as Deependra died issueless. Thus, applying the analogy has quashed the orders holding that the plot be again recorded back in the name of deceased Deependra. 4. It is submitted that once the fact of death of the deceased has been recorded, then such land could not be recorded in the name of the deceased when surviving legal heirs were before the appellate authority. Thus, applying the analogy has quashed the orders holding that the plot be again recorded back in the name of deceased Deependra. 4. It is submitted that once the fact of death of the deceased has been recorded, then such land could not be recorded in the name of the deceased when surviving legal heirs were before the appellate authority. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no reason for the second appellate authority to delete the name of the petitioner from the revenue record, as even the analogy applied by the second appellate authority is accepted, then also the petitioner's name ought to have been recorded as one half shareholder of the disputed plot. Thus, the second appellate authority has committed grave error of law in recording the name of the deceased on the disputed plot in the revenue record. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings on the ground that there is a serious dispute of relationship of the petitioner as a wife of the deceased. The respondent being father has challenged the order on the ground that on the basis of marriage certificate, mutation could not have been recorded by the competent authority. It is submitted that the Allahabad High Court (Bench Lucknow) vide judgment dated 5.7.2024 in the case of Shruti Agnihotri Vs. Anand Kumar Shrivastava, in First Appeal No.239/2023, has held that there is no validity of the certificate of marriage issued by the Arya Samaj and, thus, any mutation done on the basis of such certificate is illegal and contrary to law. It is further submitted that marriage is also not believable because the petitioner is much older than deceased Deependra, and thus prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The succession of a Hindu male is governed by section 8 of the Act of 1956 which provides us under :- "8. General rules of succession in the case of males.?The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:? 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The succession of a Hindu male is governed by section 8 of the Act of 1956 which provides us under :- "8. General rules of succession in the case of males.?The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:? (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased." 8. Schedule provides class of heirs amongst whom the estate of the deceased is devolved. As per schedule, class I heirs are defined which provides us under :- THE SCHEDULE (See section 8) HEIRS IN CLASS I AND CLASS II Class I Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre- deceased son 1 [son of a predeceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son]. Class II I. Father. II. (1) Son’s daughter’s son, (2) son’s daughter’s daughter, (3)brother, (4) sister. III. (1) Daughter’s son’s son, (2) daughter’s son’s daughter, (3) daughter’s daughter’s son, (4) daughter’s daughter’s daughter. IV. (1) Brother’s son, (2) sister’s son, (3) brother’s daughter, (4) sister’s daughter. V. Father’s father; father’s mother. VI. Father’s widow; brother’s widow. VII. Father’s brother; father’s sister. VIII. Mother’s father; mother’s mother. IX. Mother’s brother; mother’s sister. Explanation.?In this Schedule, references to a brother or sister do not include references to a brother or sister by uterine blood. Section 9 of the Act of 1956 provides as under :- 9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule. Father’s widow; brother’s widow. VII. Father’s brother; father’s sister. VIII. Mother’s father; mother’s mother. IX. Mother’s brother; mother’s sister. Explanation.?In this Schedule, references to a brother or sister do not include references to a brother or sister by uterine blood. Section 9 of the Act of 1956 provides as under :- 9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule. Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession. 9. The Hon. Apex Court in the case of M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal, (2020) 11 SCC 103 has held as under :- 15. In Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt.) v. M. Arifulla [Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt.) v. M. Arifulla, (2002) 10 SCC 342 ] the issue which arose was whether the property inherited in terms of Sections 6 and 8 of the Succession Act was to be treated as the property of co-owners or as joint family property. The Court held as follows: (SCC p. 344, para 3) “3. … This Court has held in CWT v. Chander Sen [CWT v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 641] that a property devolving under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, is the individual property of the person who inherits the same and not that of the HUF. In fact, in the special leave petition, it is admitted that Respondents 2 to 5 inherited the property in question from the said T.M. Doraiswami. Hence, they held it as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.” 17. .......... Furthermore, when we conjointly read Section 30 with Section 19, which provides that when two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate, they shall take the property per capita and as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. This also clearly indicates that the property was not to be treated as a joint family property though it may be held jointly by the legal heirs as tenants-in-common till the property is divided, apportioned or dealt with in a family settlement. As per Legal Glossary word 'Simultaneously' is defined as 'at the same time, in a simultaneous manner'. This also clearly indicates that the property was not to be treated as a joint family property though it may be held jointly by the legal heirs as tenants-in-common till the property is divided, apportioned or dealt with in a family settlement. As per Legal Glossary word 'Simultaneously' is defined as 'at the same time, in a simultaneous manner'. As per the Cambridge Dictionary, word 'Simultaneously' is defined as 'happening or being done at the same time'. 10. Taking guidance from the aforesaid enunciation of law and applying the meaning of word 'simultaneously', it is clear that when a Hindu male dies intestate, then his estate is devolved on the legal heirs defined in the Schedule, i.e. Class I heirs simultaneously, meaning thereby that if there are living class I heirs, it will be devolved equally amongst them at the same time. Thus, the order on the point that mutation recorded in favour of the petitioner be revert back in the name of the deceased is not in accordance with law. At the most, name of mother of the deceased, who is surviving, may be recorded on equal share with the petitioner on the disputed land as per provision of section 8 of the Act of 1956. 11. As regards the objection of the respondent that the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of the deceased, this question cannot be decided by the revenue authorities, for which the civil court is the only remedy. It is also observed that the respondent being father in whose favour no right to succeed has been accrued as per the Act of 1956, has challenged the mutation entry when surviving class I heirs, i.e. wife and mother are alive. Thus, he has no locus standi to challenge such an order of mutation under the provisions of the Act of 1956. At the most, the mother could have challenged it, however, the same has not been done. 12. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that father has no right to challenge such mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner. However, it is observed that name of the petitioner and the mother of the deceased are equally entitled to be recorded in place of deceased Deependra. 13. 12. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that father has no right to challenge such mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner. However, it is observed that name of the petitioner and the mother of the deceased are equally entitled to be recorded in place of deceased Deependra. 13. With the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 9.10.2025 (annexure P/6) is hereby quashed to the extent mentioned hereinabove and it is directed that the name of the petitioner and the mother of the deceased be recorded on equal share on the disputed plot. 14. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. It is observed that the findings arrived at by this Court is ex-facie for the purpose of deciding mutation proceedings. The parties are free to take recourse of law before the civil court for declaration of their respective rights.