Court dismisses first appellate decree favoring traditional succession, emphasizes mandatory joinder of all co-owners in partition suits, and imposes costs on respondent
In a significant judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Sugato Majumdar, has set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court in a long-pending dispute over the Mankiary Estate located in Purulia district. The case, titled Uddhab Singh Babu and Anr. v. Hemanta Kr. Singh Manki, challenged the applicability of traditional primogeniture customs governing the succession of the estate, which had been relied upon by the first appellate court to grant relief to the plaintiff.
The dispute arose after the death of Chunu Singh Manki, the recorded proprietor of the Mankiary Estate, which comprised several mouzas under P.S.-Baghmundi. Following his demise, succession matters became contentious between his descendants, with the plaintiff claiming title as the eldest son under the family custom of primogeniture, while defendants contested the validity of this custom and the plaintiff's entitlement, pointing out irregularities in possession and record entries.
The trial court initially dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and partition, citing non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of possession. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, extensively examining the social history of the estate and upholding the plaintiff's claim based on the primogeniture tradition.
The High Court, in its thorough analysis, emphasized the overriding effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly Section 4, which abrogates any custom or usage inconsistent with the Act. The court held that the traditional rule of primogeniture governing the Mankiary Estate could not supersede the statutory provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Succession and inheritance must be determined under the codified law rather than customary rules that conflict with it.
Furthermore, the High Court reaffirmed the principle that in suits for partition, all co-owners and subsequent purchasers are necessary parties. The trial court's observation that some lands were in possession of co-owners who were not impleaded was accepted as fatal to the suit, and the appellate court's disregard of this defect was criticized.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The respondent (plaintiff) was also directed to pay costs amounting to Rs. 50,000 to the appellants.
This decision underscores the supremacy of codified succession laws over customary practices and reiterates procedural safeguards in partition suits to ensure all interested parties are heard before a decree is passed.
Bottom Line:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 4 overrides any custom or usage including rule of primogeniture governing Mankiary Estate; suit for declaration and partition is also liable to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties where co-owners/subsequent purchasers are not impleaded.
Statutory provision(s):
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 4, Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34, Limitation Act, 1963 Section 6, West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953
Uddhab Singh Babu v. Hemanta Kr. Singh Manki, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996283
