http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NEWANNESS ALIAS MEWAJANNESSA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHAIKH MOHAMAD ALIAS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/02/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  702            1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 529  JT 1995 (2)   652        1995 SCALE  (2)243

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   This  appeal by special leave arises from the  judgment of  the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in  appeal from  original decree No.652/61 and cross  objections  dated June  8, 1973.  This Court while granting leave limited  the appeal  to  the  questions raised in ground  Nos.II  and  VI dealing  with  inheritance of property belonging  to  Sabul, Liaquat  and  Mahujammusa.  Therefore,  untrammeled  by  the controversy  which  hinged in the trial court and  the  High Court,  we  confined  our consideration only  to  these  two questions. 2.   This  appeal  arises  out of  a  partition  suit.   The genealogy  table before us has not been disputed.  It  would show  that  Haji Ishan Ali died in 1955 leaving  behind  his widow  Samudanusa,  plaintiff  No.1  (P-1),  who  also  died pending suit in 1966; his two daughters, plaintiff No.2  (P- 2) Bibi Mewannesa and Bibi Mahujammusa, defendant No.5 (D-5) and  three  sons  Jabar Ali, Isabul Ali  and  Sabul  Hassan. Jabar  Ali  left  behind defendant No.1  (D-1),  a  son  and defendant  No.2 (D-2), a daughter.  Isabul Ali  left  behind him defendant No.3 (D-3), a daughter.  D-3 was married to D- 1.  Sabul  Hassan pre-deceased Isabul  Ali,  leaving  behind defendant No.4 (D-4). a son and Liaquat also a son, who  too died 653 before  the  death of Isabul Ali.  The trial  court  granted preliminary decree which was affirmed in appeal.  The shares and  extent are in controversy.  The High Court  found  that the property purchased by Haji Ishan Ali in the name of  his son  Sabul Hassan belong to the latter alone.   Since  Sabul Hassan  had  pre-deceased-Isabul  Ali,  the  question  arose whether  Haji Ishan Ali was a sharer in the estate of  Sabul Hassan. 3.   Section 61 in Chapter VII of the Mulla’s Principles  of Mohammedan  Law,  edited by M.  Hidayatullah,  former  Chief

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Justice  of this Court, postulates three classes  of  heirs, namely,  (1)  sharers,  (2)  residuaries,  and  (3)  distant kindred.  Sharers are those who are entitled to a prescribed share  in  inheritance, residuaries are those  who  take  no prescribed  share,  but succeed to the ’residue’  after  the claims of the sharers are satisfied; and distant kindred are all  those  relations by blood who are neither  sharers  nor residuaries.   The  Table at page 72-A of the  18th  Edition prescribes that a father who is under Item No. 1, gets 1/6th share,  where there is child or children of a son; and  when there is no child or children of a son, the father  inherits as  residuary.   Since  Sabul Hassan left  behind  D-4  son, Isabul  Ali  got 1/6th share.  Out of this 1/6th  share  got from the estate of Sabul Hassan, his widow (P1) and P-2  the daughter  would get equal respective share under law,  which would be determined by the Trial Court. 4.   The next question is whether P-2 is entitled to a share in  the  estate of Bibi Mahujammusa, D-5, who  died  pending suit.   Section 65 dealing with residuaries, read  with  the Table  at page 72A, indicates that if there are no  sharers, or  if there sharers but there is residue left after  satis- fying their claim, residuaries also inherit in the order set forth  in the Table.  D-5 left behind two daughters  and  as per  the sharers two daughters are, entitled to 1/3rd  share each  i.e. 2/3rd share.  In other words, 1/3rd  remained  as residue.   Table  at  page  72A  dealing  with   residuaries indicates  that where descendants like son, son’s  son,  and ascendants  like father and grand father arc not  available, then  the  descendants  of the. father takes  in  the  order mentioned.   The  first  is full brother.  then  sister;  in default, a daughter or son’s daughter or daughter’s son.  In this case since only two daughters were left behind by  D-5, the full sister, namely P-2, takes the entire residue, which is 1/3rd share. 5.   It is next contended that since D-1 died in March 1990, steps  were not taken to bring the legal representatives  on record until 27th January, 1995 despite notice given to  the appellant by a letter dated November 14, 1990 and no  proper explanation  has  been  given  for  the  inordinate   delay. Therefore,  the  appeal as a whole should  be  dismissed  as having  been abated.  We, find no force in  the  Contention. Since the third defendant is already on representing all the heirs  of  the  first  defendant  widow,  the  question   of abatement  does  not  arise.  Even otherwise  we  find  that substitution should be allowed, since no injustice would  be done in bring the legal representatives on record.  Thus the objection  is over-ruled.  The application for  substitution is allowed. 6.   The  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed.  The  matter  is remitted  to the Trial Court for determining the  shares  of all  the  contesting  parties and for  distribution  of  the estate  in  proportion  to  shares.   This  would  be   done according to the law declared hereinbefore.  No costs. 656