The Calcutta High Court has held that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, overrides customary law of primogeniture governing succession to a Mankiary estate, observing that the customary rule stood abrogated after the enactment came into force.

Justice Sugato Majumdar set aside a first appellate court judgment that had recognised a plaintiff's right to an eight-anna (half) share in the disputed properties of the Mankiary estate in Purulia. The Court held that the first appellate court had failed to consider Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, which gives the Act overriding effect over customs or usages inconsistent with its provisions.

“The First Appellate Court possibly was more enthused to compose a social history than to write a judgment,” the High Court observed, criticising the appellate court for exploring the social history and traditions of the Mankiary estate while overlooking the governing statutory law.

The Court allowed the second appeal filed by Uddhab Singh Babu and another, set aside the judgment and decree dated August 5, 2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, First Court, Purulia, and affirmed the trial court's decision dismissing the suit. It also directed the plaintiff to pay litigation costs of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants.

Background

The dispute concerned the succession and ownership of properties forming part of the Mankiary estate in Baghmundi, Purulia. The plaintiff, Hemanta Kumar Singh Manki, claimed to have succeeded to the estate as the eldest son of Brajakishore, who was said to have inherited the position of Manki under the customary rule of primogeniture.

According to the plaintiff, his uncle Krishnamohan had managed the estate as his guardian but subsequently recorded the estate in his own name during land settlement proceedings. The plaintiff alleged that Krishnamohan had no independent right, title or interest in the properties and sought a declaration of ownership, partition of his half share and other consequential reliefs.

The defendants disputed the claim, contending, among other things, that the plaintiff's mother was not legally married to Brajakishore and that the plaintiff had no right to inherit the estate. They also argued that the customary rule of primogeniture could not prevail over the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding, among other things, that necessary parties had not been joined. However, the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the suit in preliminary form, recognising the plaintiff's right to an eight-anna share in the properties.

The defendants challenged that decision before the High Court. The substantial questions of law included whether the rule of primogeniture applied to the suit properties without the sanction of codified law and whether the issue of limitation had been correctly decided.

High Court's Findings

Justice Majumdar held that the first appellate court had erred in recognising the plaintiff's rights on the basis of customary primogeniture without considering the overriding effect of the Hindu Succession Act.

Referring to Section 4 of the Act, the Court observed that, after the legislation came into force, succession would be governed by the statutory provisions rather than the customary law of the Mankiary estate.

“Therefore, instead of Mankiary Estate or Mankiary Tradition, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would govern the relationship and law of succession,” the Court held.

The Court further observed that the first appellate court's findings were contrary to the codified law and were therefore perverse. It concluded that the plaintiff could not claim title to the properties on the basis of Mankiary law or tradition.

The High Court also agreed with the trial court's finding that the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. It noted that the plaintiff had sought partition of the properties and that all co-owners were necessary parties for an effective decree to be passed.

The Court held that the first appellate court had committed an error in disregarding the trial court's conclusion on this issue.

Accordingly, the second appeal was allowed, the first appellate court's judgment and decree were set aside, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.

Case: Uddhab Singh Babu & Anr. v. Hemanta Kumar Singh Manki

Case No.: SA 312 of 2009