NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

CASE ANALYSIS END TERM

FAMILY LAW - II
GUR NARAYAN DAS v. GUR TAHAL DAS

SUBMITTED TO: Prof. Kavita Singh

SUBMITTED BY: Soumya Verma

(2019BALLB35)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my Family Law 2 Professor, Kavita Singh, for giving me the opportunity to
make this project. Without her guidance, this project would have been incomplete.

I would also like to thank my University for providing me with the facilities to make this project.

Yours Sincerely,
Soumya Verma
2019ballb35
 GUR NARAYAN DAS v. GUR TAHAL DAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AIR 1952 SC 225

Petitioner Gur Narain Das and Anr.

Respondent Gur Tahal Das and Ors.

Date of Judgment 16th May 1952

Bench Division

Name of judges Justice Saiyad Fazal Ali, Justice Vivian Bose

Introduction:

Property ownership is one of the intrinsic qualities of individuals in the public arena. Since the
time individuals got comfortable with land development and feudalism came into training,
responsibility for came to be viewed as a superficial point of interest. Aggregate responsibility
for continuously appeared and was received by the families. This formed into the idea of joint
family property or HUF as far as we might be concerned today.

This joint family property can be apportioned under particular conditions or regardless of
whether one of the coparceners requests to do as such. Endless supply of the joint family
property, it's difficult the coparceners who guarantee an offer yet it is likewise the ones who are
qualified for support from those assets.

In a conventional situation, the coparceners are male individuals from similar family and no
outcasts can guarantee an offer in the property.
Notwithstanding, this idea of Joint Family Property, coparceners, and so forth has developed and
changed over the long run either by declaration of new enactments or by corrections to the old
ones or by legal professions.

Background:

This case was first taken to a trial court in Patna which then was taken to the High Court in Patna
as the ruling ruled out in the Trial Court were:

1. Nandkishore Das had two legitimate sons, Gur Tahal Das (D1) and Jai Narayan Das (D2).

2. The claim could not be maintained because the plaintiff did not own the property for which he 
sought partition.

3. The plaintiff lacked standing to sue.

4. Budhprakash and Nandkishore Das were one and the same person.

5. The Sundras, not the Dwijas, were the parties.

6. Shib Tahl Das had not demonstrated that he was who he claimed to be.

Then the proceedings were taken forward to High Court of Patna

where,The High Court overturned the Trial Court's judgement, ruling that:

1. Gur Tahal Das (D1) and Jai Narayan Das (D2) were Nandkishore Das' genuine sons.

2. Budhprakash died without his brother Nandkishore by his side.

3. There was no need to file a declaration of title lawsuit.

4. The Sundras, not the Dwijas, were the parties.

The High Court ordered property separation and subsequent allotment.

Judicial pronouncements:

Natarajan vs. Vellaiyappa1 in this case,  

1
Vellaiyappa v. Natarajan, [(1931) 33 BOM LR 1526].
If the father has left distinct property, legitimate sons, and was joint with his collaterals, the son c
an claim a piece of the property and seek partition, but not otherwise. This case was taken into
consideration as it was said that, "Their Lordships are of opinion that the illegitimate son of the
Sundra by a continuous concubine has the status of a son, and that the he is a member of the
family; that the share of the inheritance given to him is not merely in lieu of maintenance, but in
recognition of his status as a son; that where the father has left no separate property and no
legitimate son, but was joint with his collaterals, the illegitimate son is not entitled to demand a
partition of the joint family property in their hands, but is entitled as a member of the family to
maintenance out of that property."
Neelamma v. Sarojamma2, The courts used to believe that illegitimate sons were only related
to their mother and each other, not to the father. As a result, kids can inherit property from their
mothers alone or jointly, whereas they may only have a stake in the father's separate property.
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun3

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions:

 Mitakshara, Ch. 1, S. 12 – headed as Right of a son by a female slave in the case of a

Sundra’s estate. This has been considered as it has also been considered in the case of
Natarajan Vellaiyappa.
 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 16 Rule (3) of this act, which says, “The
devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and
(e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) to section 15 shall be in the same order and
according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father’s or
the mother’s or the husband’s as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in
respect thereof immediately after the intestate’s death.”

2
Neelamma v. Sarojamma, [(2006) 9 SCC 612].
3
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, [(2011) 86 ALR 450].
Material Facts:

1. Two children of Rambilal Das, Budhprakash Das and Nandikishore Das were in a joint
family set up and possessed some genealogical property.

2. The suit was organized by Gur Tahal Das, one of Nandkishore Das' children against 4
respondents likewise children of Nandkishore Das. They were all purportedly ill-conceived
children from two distinct courtesans. Gur Tahal Das (D1) and Jai Narayan Das (D2) were
children from one courtesan and Gur Narayan Das (P) and Shib Tahl Das (D3) were children
from another mistress.

3. Case of the Plaintiff:

a) The offended party affirmed that Budhprakash Das died without leaving any male
relatives or any of his male issues in the coparcenary with Nandkishore Das. Thus, the entire
property was left in the possession of the offended party. Upon questions in regards to property
delight and the executives, the gatherings looked for segment.

b) The litigants were Sundras (or, shudras) and children from various courtesans.

4. Case of the Defendants:

a) The respondents affirmed that the suit for segment was not viable as the offended party
was never possessing the property being referred to.

b) They likewise challenged that they were not Sundras but rather Dwijas and an ill-
conceived child for example the offended party couldn't sue for parcel.

c) They claimed that they didn't frame a Joint Hindu Family with the offended party and
Shib Tahl Das.

d) Defendant 5, Kuldip Das, child of Budhprakash Das' girl, challenged that Budhprakash
Das and Nandkishore Das were isolated, and despite the fact that they didn't partition the
property by distributes and limits, they separated the yield share down the middle. He
additionally challenged that his offer was not liable to parcel as he held it in the limit of
Budhprakash Das' girl's child.
Issue:

The offended party raised the accompanying issues under the steady gaze of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court:

1. Whether Budhprakash Das and Nandkishore Das were discrete or joint?

2. Whether the offended party, an ill-conceived kid, qualified uniquely for upkeep or
additionally to an offer in the property his dad left?

3. Whether an individual can initiate a suit for parcel of property he isn't in control of?

4. Whether the respondents were Sundras or Dwijas?

The court through a progression of consistent derivations and points of reference went to a
choice which is talked about in the following segment

Arguments Advanced:

Petitioner:

1. The petitioners’ grounds were that parties were Sudras and belonged to the Nanak Shai
sect of Fakirs and that he and the third defendant, Shibtahl Das, were dasiputras of
Nandkishore Das by a concubine, and Jai Narayan Das and Gurnarayan Das were also
dasiputras from another concubine.
2. This was heavily contested by both of them as Supreme Court was considering what the
trial court has recommended based on the evidence put forth by it.

Respondent:

1. There were some questions or contentions put forth by the defendants which were, firstly,
First, because the plaintiff was never in possession of the properties he claimed division o
f, the suit could not be maintained as a partition action. 
2. Second, the defendants' family were Dwijas, not Sundras, and an illegitimate son could n
ot sue for partition, third, the defendants were not from the same Hindu family as the plai
 ntiff and Shibtahl Das, and fourth, the defendants were not from a joint Hindu family wit
h the plaintiff and Shibtahl Das.

3. Mst. Rambholi Kuer was not Nanaksharan Das's widow, and sixth, the plaintiff and Shibt
ahl Das were not Nandkishore Das's sons. 
4. Mst. Rambholi Kuer argued that the parties were Dwijas, not Sudras, and defendant No. 5 
Kuldip Das pleaded the same, as well as claiming that the Budparkash Das was not relate
d to the Nandkishore Das.Moreover, that while they did not split the properties by metes 
and bounds, they did divide the product half and half, and that he was in possession of his 
portion of the properties as the daughters son of Budparkash Das, and that they could not 
be divided. Shibtahl Das agreed with the plaintiff's allegation.

Judgment:

Authored by Justice Saiyid,

1. The court agreed with the High Court that Budhprakash Das died apart from his brother
Nandkishore Das. For the same, the court has given reasons.

Budhprakash and Nandkishore resided in different homes, according to the evidence presented
before the Trial Court.

b) Kuldip Das (D5) has also given proof that Budhprakash was making a separate payment.

During the 1907s, the Chowkidari tax was imposed. In lieu of the land being guarded, it was a
watch and ward tax collected by police assistants or chowkidars.

c) D5 also supplied letters as proof that he was a member of the family and that he was receiving
grains and money on a regular basis.

d) According to Nandkishore's letters to Kuldip, he was provided money and cereals, as well as "
a part in the accounts which should be seized by him and the division explained to him when he 
visits Nandkishore."The court came to the conclusion that if the brothers had been married, there 
would have been no need to settle and explain the accounts to D5.
2. The Court looked at Mitakshara law and a Privy Council decision to come to the conclusion
that an illegitimate son might seek division if his father is divorced from his collaterals and has
left behind distinct property and legitimate sons.
a) Illegitimate sons of a Sundra are explicitly addressed in Mitakshara, Ch. 1 S. 12. They were
also thoroughly examined by the Privy Council in the case.
If the father has left distinct property, legitimate sons, and was joint with his collaterals, the son
can claim a piece of the property and seek division, but not otherwise. Furthermore, the court in
this decision reaffirmed that an illegitimate son does not acquire an interest in the joint family
property by birth and so cannot seek property division.

1. The third claim of the defendants was rejected by the Court as unless explicit ouster
or exclusion is proved against them, the applicant cannot be assumed to be out of
possession of the property. The plaintiff is undoubtedly a coparcener in the property and
is entitled to partition.
2. The court refused to overturn the Trial Court's and the High Court's determinations that th
e parties were Sudras. The High Court had concluded that the parties were Sudras based o
n a number of well-established criteria in different judicial declarations. 
Furthermore, the fact that the parties were Sudras was supported by oral evidence.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court decided that illegitimate sons can claim a portion of the father's property if:

a) The claim is made after the father's death,

b) The father died in a state of separation from his collaterals, and c) the father died in a state of
separation from his collaterals.

c) He has legitimate sons and daughters.

d) He left separate property in the illegitimate son's name.

Obiter Dicta:
The conclusion is that what was formerly unjustified might now be justified by a shift in society'
s view, customs, and lifestyle, as well as the application of reasoning. 
The Hindu laws, especially the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Hindu Succession Act of 19
56, were created with the goal of regulating arbitrary Hindu practises and adapting to changing ci
rcumstance social conventions .
With such motivation, a strict reading of the provision along the lines of conventional law is poin
tless.As a result, incidents like this have aided in increasing social inclusion and avoiding impove
rished families and illegitimate children from facing a bleak future. 

Such rulings are a positive step toward delivering justice in society with a clear conscience.

Legal Analysis

Our choice is the major focus of this investigation. The proof and facts date back to 1931. The
most significant rule established in this case was that if an illegitimate son was separated from
his collaterals at the time of his father's death, he might claim in his father's ancestral property. In
a sense, this decision established that an illegitimate son can only claim from his father's separate
estate. There is no claim to shared ancestral property. This study examines this choice in depth.
The research also includes other changes and court declarations in this area.

Conclusion and observation:

The case Gur Narayan Das v. Gur Tahl Das was decided in 1931. 
Since then, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 (hence referred to as the "Act"), as well as numero
us later revisions, have been enacted. The Act has been construed by the courts in various judgm
ents to provide or deny an illegitimate son a part in the family property. The courts used to
believe that illegitimate sons were only linked to their mother and each other, not to the father.
As a result, they may inherit property only from their moms or jointly, whereas they may only
have a portion in the father's separate property.
However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that a kid born out of wedlock is innocent and so has 
no right to inherit from his parents, whether it be their own property or ancestral property. The co
urt applied a more liberal interpretation of Section 16(3) of the Act to include "ancestral property
" in the definition of "property possessed by the parents." Hence,
Illegitimate sons, while not having a share by birth, have subsequently obtained a share as a resul
t of legal decisions.

TEXT REFERRED

 A handbook of Hindu Succession by P.K. Das.

 The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/right-of-illegitimate-child-to-inherit-his-fathers-
ancestral-property.

CASES

 Gur Narayan Das v. Gur Tahal Das, [AIR 1952 SC 225].

 Vellaiyappa v. Natarajan, [(1931) 33BOM LR 1562].
 Neelamma v. Sarojamma, [(2006) 9 SCC 612].
 Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, [(2011) 86 ALR 450].