Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) MAHABALI and Chandrabali were own brothers. They were the occupancy tenants of the plots in dispute. The plots were situate in the erstwhile State of Banaras. Under the tenancy laws obtaining in that State succession to occupancy tenancy was governed by personal law. Mahabali died in 1953. Soon thereafter on 29 -7 -1953 Chandrabali executed a deed of sale of all the plots to Mahadeo Respondent No. 3. During the consolidation operations Smt. Jairaji, the widow of Mahabali, filed an objection claiming a half share in the plots. The Dy. DC ultimately repelled the claim and dismissed the objection. Smt. Jairaji filed a writ petition. But the same also failed leading to the present appeal.
(2.) IN Mulla's Hindu Law para. 217 headed as "Females cannot be co -parceners", it has been stated that a widow succeeding under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act to her husband's share in a joint family cannot be a co -parcener. The reason is not far to seek. The moment a co -parcener dies leaving a widow entitling to succeed to his right under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, the shares of the co -parceners, which were till then undefined, became defined. It is as a result of the refinement of share that the widow succeeds to it. Thereafter she is the owner of the defined share. With the defilement of shares, the joint nature of the family disrupts and the shares of other co -parceners also becomes defined. Thereafter the various members of the family (are) co -owners as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. In such a situation the eldest member of the family no longer enjoys the status of being a karta of the family so as to have unfettered rights of disposal over the erstwhile co -parcenery property. Being a joint owner he could at best transfer his own share. Without the authority of the other members he could not on his own transfer any interest which did not vest in him. On the death of Mahabali his widow Smt. Jairaji became the owner of his half share. The event of Mahabali's death disrupted the joint nature of the holding. Thereafter Chandrabali and Smt. Jairaji were owners of half share each as tenants in common. Chandrabali could not sell the share vesting in Smt. Jairaji. The objection filed by Smt. Jairaji was liable to succeed. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the order of the Dy. DC is quashed. The Appellant would be entitled to costs.;