Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi & Ors 2015 (Case Summary)

This case, Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi & Ors decided by the Supreme Court of India, centered around a dispute over the ownership and nature of a property. The primary issue was whether the property was joint family property or self-acquired property. The court examined various claims regarding the origin of funds used to purchase the property, inheritance rights and the validity of earlier proceedings between the parties. The case also discussed the role of a widow in managing joint family property and whether she could act as the Karta (head) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

Table of Contents

Facts of Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi

In 1937, Hari Shankar married Savitri Vidyarthi (first wife).
In 1942, he married Rama Vidyarthi (second wife), and from this marriage, two daughters Srilekha and Madhulekha were born.
Shreya Vidyarthi ( The Defendant/Appellant) was the adopted daughter of Srilekha and the beneficiary of a will left by Madhulekha Vidyarthi.
After Hari Shankar Vidyarthi’s death in 1955, Rama Vidyarthi managed the family affairs and handled financial matters, including the insurance money and maintenance funds from a trust.
The disputed property, House No. 7/89, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur, was purchased on September 27, 1961, in the name of Rama Vidyarthi.
Ashok Vidyarthi (The Plaintiff/ Respondent) claimed the property was bought using joint family funds, including insurance proceeds and advances from the Pratap Press Trust, Kanpur, where his father had been the managing trustee. The plaintiff argued that the property was joint family property and sought partition and separation of shares.
The defendants, led by Srilekha and Madhulekha, denied the existence of joint family funds and claimed the property was purchased using personal funds of their mother, Rama Vidyarthi.
Multiple suits were filed by Savitri Vidyarthi and Ashok Vidyarthi, but they were dismissed due to procedural issues (non-payment of court fees).
In 1978, The plaintiff filed a fresh suit for partition and permanent injunction, leading to the present case.

Issues framed

Whether the suit property was purchased from joint family funds, making it part of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)?
Whether a Hindu widow can act as the Karta or as a manager of an HUF after her husband’s death?

Subordinate Court Judgment

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove that the property was purchased from joint family funds. The sale deed was in the name of Rama Vidyarthi, and there was no indication she purchased it as a representative of the HUF. At the time of Hari Shankar Vidyarthi’s death in 1955, no joint family existed, meaning no HUF property claim was valid.

The Allahabad High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, ruling that a joint family existed, and the property was purchased using joint family funds, including insurance money and maintenance allowances. The widow (Rama Vidyarthi) acted as the manager of the family, managing finances on behalf of the minor heir (Ashok Vidyarthi). The plaintiff was entitled to ¾ of the property, while the defendant (Shreya Vidyarthi) was entitled to ¼ share.

Judgment of Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi

The Supreme Court applied principles of inheritance under Hindu law, recognizing that all heirs have rights to the deceased’s property, including insurance proceeds. The court also examined Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, this rule deals with dismissal of suits for non-payment of court fees, which had affected earlier suits but did not bar the present suit under Order VII Rule 13 of the CPC.

The court ruled that the property was purchased using joint family funds, including the insurance money received after Hari Shankar Vidyarthi’s death. Since the property was joint family property, all legal heirs, including the plaintiff (Ashok Vidyarthi), had a rightful share in it. The Court also addressed the role of a widow in an HUF under Hindu law. It ruled that while a widow cannot be a Karta (as she is not a coparcener), she can act as a Manager if she is handling the affairs of the family on behalf of a minor coparcener. Additionally, the Court also ruled that since the previous dismissals were on technical grounds and not on merits, the plaintiff had the right to file a fresh suit for partition.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s ruling. The Court confirmed the property as HUF property and ordered partition ¾ share to the plaintiff (Ashok Vidyarthi) and ¼ share to the defendant (Shreya Vidyarthi).