Bhanwar Singh v. Puran (2008) 3 SCC 87
Quick Summary
Core point: When Bhima died intestate in 1972, his estate went by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act to his one son (Sant Ram) and three daughters, each taking a separate one-fourth share. These shares became self-acquired and were held as tenants-in-common, not as joint family property. Because of this change in character, Bhanwar Singh, born in 1977, did not get a coparcenary birthright. The Supreme Court upheld the first appellate court and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
- Does Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 apply to the succession in this case (death in 1972)?
- Did Bhanwar Singh acquire a birthright in the property on his birth in 1977?
Rules
| Provision | Principle | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Section 8 HSA | On intestate death of a male, property devolves on Class I heirs. | Here, son and three daughters each took a 1/4th separate share. |
| Section 19 HSA | Heirs taking together hold per capita as tenants-in-common. | Each heir could deal with their share; joint family character ends. |
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellant (Bhanwar Singh)
- Bhima’s estate was joint family property.
- Sant Ram, as Karta, could not alienate without legal necessity.
- Transfers (mortgage, sale) should be set aside.
Respondents
- On 1972 death, Section 8 applied—four separate shares.
- Under Section 19, heirs held as tenants-in-common.
- Sant Ram could deal with his share; sales supported by necessity.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the first appellate court that, on Bhima’s intestate death in 1972, Section 8 governed the devolution. Each heir—Sant Ram and the three daughters—took an equal, separate share. The property therefore lost its ancestral character, and the shares were held as tenants-in-common. As a result, Bhanwar Singh, born in 1977, did not acquire a birthright in the property. The transfers by Sant Ram were not liable to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
- Section 8 applies to intestate deaths post-Act; heirs take as separate shares.
- By Section 19, they hold as tenants-in-common, not joint tenants.
- Once shares are separate, later-born children have no coparcenary birthright in those shares.
Why It Matters
This case is a clear classroom example of how Section 8 changes the nature of family property on intestate death. It helps students test whether a claim of “ancestral birthright” survives once separate shares arise. The answer here is no.
Key Takeaways
- Devolution in 1972 → Section 8 applies.
- Equal 1/4th shares to son and three daughters.
- Tenants-in-common under Section 19, not joint family property.
- No birthright for a child born after such devolution.
- Each heir may alienate their own share.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “8 Splits, 19 Sits” — Section 8 splits the estate; Section 19 says everyone sits separately as tenants-in-common.
- Ask: Was there an intestate death after the HSA? (Yes, 1972.)
- Apply: Section 8 → separate shares; Section 19 → tenants-in-common.
- Answer: No birthright for later-born children in such separate shares.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does Section 8 apply to Bhima’s 1972 death, and did Bhanwar Singh get a birthright in 1977?
Rule
Section 8: devolution to Class I heirs; Section 19: heirs hold per capita as tenants-in-common.
Application
Heirs (son + three daughters) got 1/4th each as separate shares; joint family character ended; later-born child has no birthright.
Conclusion
Appeal dismissed; Section 8 and Section 19 control; no coparcenary right for Bhanwar Singh.
Glossary
- Tenants-in-Common
- Co-owners with separate, undivided shares; each can deal with their own share.
- Coparcenary Birthright
- Automatic right by birth in ancestral property. Not available once shares become separate under Section 8.
- Intestate
- Death without a valid will.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now