Shakuntala vs Robert Anthony

NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 765

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).9449 of 2020)

SHAKUNTALA & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ROBERT ANTHONY & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave Granted.

th
2. The original defendant challenges the judgment dated 7 February 2020
passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Second Appeal No.290
of 2009. All the three courts have taken differing views.

th
3. The plaintiffs’ suit being Civil Suit No.51-A/2007 before the 5 Civil
1
Judge, Class I, Bilaspur , was decreed and the sale deed executed by the
th
defendants was held to be invalid. The plaintiffs were held entitled for 1/4 share
Signature Not Verified
of Khasra No.690/7. Defendants were entitled to vacant possession of a specified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2026.07.30
15:28:57 IST
Reason:

1
Civil Court
C.A. No.(s) .../2026 @ SLP (C) No(s) 9449 of 2020 Page 1 of 9

st 2
portion. The 1 Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in the First Appeal filed by
the original defendants, set aside the decree of the Civil Court and held that both
plaintiffs and defendants collectively are entitled to half share each from their
respective mother. However, since defendants 1 to 5 had sold their share to
Defendant 6 the sale was held to be valid. The High Court, in terms of the
3
impugned judgment, held the two widows of Mattus Anthony namely Filomina
rd
and Shyam Bai, together entitled to 1/3 of the property, and the children of
rd
Filomina (plaintiffs) being the lineal descendants of MA, entitled to 2/3 of the
property.
4. The plaintiffs and defendants are step siblings and their successive
generations. Family chart depicting the same is as follows:
Mattus Anthony
(died in 1991
Filomina
Shyam Bai (Wife
(Wife 1; died in
2; died in 2000)
1985)
Francina
Anjleena
Shakuntala
John Anthony
Robert Anthony
Anthony
(daughter)
Anthony
(daughter)
(son; died in
(Wife) Def 1
(son) Plantiff 1
1985)
Plaintiff 2
Plaintiff 3
Deziz Agastin
Anthony (son)
Johnlooks
Anthony (son)
Joseph Anthony
Seema Anthony
(son) Def 4
(daughter) Def 5
Def 2
Def 3


2
First Appellate Court
3
MA
C.A. No.(s) .../2026 @ SLP (C) No(s) 9449 of 2020 Page 2 of 9

5. MA had two wives, Filomina and Shyam Bai. Filomina had three children.
Shyam Bai had one son. The parties are undisputedly Christian by faith. There is
no dispute regarding the marriages performed by MA and the paternity of the
children so begotten. The facts in which the present dispute arises are that MA, in
the year 1959, bought the portion of land for consideration of INR 300, in the
name of his two wives. Filomina died in 1985. MA died in 1991 and Shyam Bai
died in 2000, with her son John Antony predeceasing her in 1985. The defendants,
on 19 August 2002, sold their share i.e., half out of the total 1776ft² i.e., 888 ft² to
defendant No. 6, namely Marium Anthony, leading the Plaintiffs to file the suit in
question. The issues framed by the Civil Court and the corresponding findings,
and the points of consideration as also their findings, are encapsulated below:
TRIAL COURT
Issues Findings
Mutual partition never took place between them so
the suit land is joint ancestral property of the legal
heirs of Late Filomina and legal heirs of Late
Shyama Bai.
Any sale without permission or consent of co-owner
is not legal. Since no consent of plaintiffs was
obtained before sale, the sale deed is not valid and
since the said sale deed is illegal, the mutation
proceeding carried out in favour of defendant No.6
on the basis of said sale deed by itself is void.
Whether the suit land being joint
property of the Plaintiffs and
Defendant no. 1 to 6, the sale deed
dated 19.08.02 executed by the
Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of
Defendant No. 6 being illegal and void
is not binding on plaintiffs?
1.
Since the sale deed has been found to be illegal, the
statutory right of Defendant No. 6 ends. The plaintiffs
along with the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to
vacant possession of the disputed land from Defendant
No.6.
Can it be proper to grant possession of
‘a, b, c, d’ parts of suit land to the
plaintiffs from the Defendant No. 6?
2.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
get permanent injunction restraining
defendant No. 6 from interfering with
‘a, b, c, d’ part of the suit land?
The plaintiffs neither pleaded nor adduced evidence
showing any interference or intermeddling by
Defendant No.6, hence, not entitled to get permanent
injunction.
3.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
4.
get damages of Rs. 500/- from June,
No fraud by Defendant 6 is proved. Sale deed found
illegal, defendant No.6 is free to recover the sale
C.A. No.(s) .../2026 @ SLP (C) No(s) 9449 of 2020 Page 3 of 9

2003 from Defendant No. 6 and a sum
of Rs. 500/- with interest till receipt of
vacant possession of the suit land &
house?
amount from defendant Nos.1 to 5 upon delivering
vacant possession.
Whether the plaintiffs have affixed
court fee after valuing their claim
properly?
It appears that the plaintiffs have properly valued their
claim and paid the court fee.
5.
Sale deed dated 19.8.2002 & consequent mutation in
favour of defendant No.6 are ineffective.
Plaintiffs entitled to one-fourth each.
Defendant No.6 to hand over vacant possession to
Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and free to recover the sale
amount from Defendant Nos.1 to 5.
6. Reliefs & Costs?

FIRST APPELLATE COURT
Issues Findings
Since Maitus Antony purchased the land from his
own income in the name of both wives, property not
ancestral property of Filomina Bai and Shyama Bai
but of their legal heirs. Even though no partition took
place between Filomina Bai and Shyama Bai, each
was entitled to a half share, as admitted in cross
examination by Robert Anthony.
Mere joint recording of names does not by itself
entitle plaintiffs to a one-fourth share; rather they are
entitled only to the share of their mother Filomina
Bai.
Defendants being the legal heirs of John Antony are
entitled to Shyama Bai's half share in the disputed
property.The defendants sold the property which they
could have received in their share, hence the sale deed
dated 19.08.2002 cannot be said to be illegal and void.
Whether the appellants/ defendants
No.1 to 5 have half share in the
disputed house and land bearing
Khasra No.690/17, area 0.04 acre?

1.
If yes, whether the judgment and
decree of the learned Court below
dated 29/9/2008 is liable to be set
aside being contrary to law and facts?
The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated
29.09.2008 is set aside.
2.

6. The High Court posed a question as to whether for the purpose of
succession, one or both the wives of MA be considered entitled or not. With
reference to a judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [ Shephali
C.A. No.(s) .../2026 @ SLP (C) No(s) 9449 of 2020 Page 4 of 9

4
Chatterjee &Ors. v. Kamla Banerjee & Ors ], however, it was concluded that the
term widow as it appears in Section 33 ISA, would cover both widows. On the
aspect of lineal descendant, it was observed, with reference to a judgment of the
5
Calcutta High Court [ In the Goods of Sarah Ezra, deceased ] that a lineal
descendant can only be that person who is an offspring of a lawful marriage. Since
John Anthony did not qualify as such, only the Plaintiffs were held to be lineal
descendants of MA.
7. Heard. The main ground pressed into service by the appellants is whether
the High Court, has correctly applied the provisions of the Indian Succession Act,
6
1925 to the present dispute. That is the question we must consider.
8. The provisions referred to, and applied by the High Court, are reproduced
below for reference:
“25. Lineal consanguinity. -(1) Lineal consanguinity is that which
subsists between two persons, one of whom is descended in a direct line
from the other, as between a man and his father, grandfather and great-
grandfather, and so upwards in the direct ascending line; or between a
man and his son, grandson, great-grandson and so downwards in the
direct descending line.
(2) Every generation constitutes a degree, either ascending or
descending. (3) A person's father is related to him in the first degree, and
so likewise is his son; his grandfather and grandson in the second
degree; his great-grandfather and great-grandson in the third degree, and
so on.”


“33. Where intestate has left widow and lineal descendants, or widow
and kindred only, or widow and no kindred. -Where the intestate has left
a widow-- (a) if he has also left any lineal descendants, one-third of his
property shall belong to his widow, and the remaining two-thirds shall
go to his lineal descendants, according to the rules hereinafter
contained; (b) save as provided by section 33A, if he has left no lineal

4
1972 SCC OnLine All 303
5
1930 SCC OnLine Cal 278
6
ISA
C.A. No.(s) .../2026 @ SLP (C) No(s) 9449 of 2020 Page 5 of 9

descendant, but has left persons who are of kindred to him, one-half of
his property shall belong to his widow, and the other half shall go to
those who are kindred to him, in the order and according to the rules
hereinafter contained; (c) if he has left none who are of kindred to him,
the whole of his property shall belong to his widow.”
(emphasis supplied)

9. For the application of Section 33, as it appears from the plain text of the
section, it is essential that the deceased person regarding whom the succession
dispute is, is a male. It provides for 3 situations when a male has died intestate
and details the portions in which his widow and others, either kindred or
descendants lineal in nature, would inherit the property. Each of the scenarios
provided therein, need not be explained by us.
10. The documents appended to the record of this case show that when MA
bought the property, he did so, squarely in the names of his 2 wives. There is no
dispute on that point. Consequently, the application of Section 33 appears
misplaced for the reason that, by its application, what the High Court implies is
that the property that was legally bought in the name of the 2 wives of MA is, in
fact, in the eyes of the law, his property, whereas that is not the case. Since the
property is in the name of the 2 wives of MA, it is their property. Now, since
Filomena predeceased MA, by virtue of the application of Section 35 of the ISA,
MA would possess the same rights on Filomena’s property as she would have in
the scenario that MA would have predeceased her. The section runs thus:
“35. Rights of widower. -A husband surviving his wife has the same
rights in respect of her property, if she dies intestate, as a widow has
in respect of her husband's property, if he dies intestate.”
C.A. No.(s) .../2026 @ SLP (C) No(s) 9449 of 2020 Page 6 of 9

The effect thereof would be that with respect to the part of the property in the
name of Filomena, one third would rest with MA and the remaining two thirds
would go to her successors in interest, that is the Plaintiffs. There would be no
application of Section 33 on the entirety of the property since never did the whole
property rest in the name of MA. Therefore, there was never the case that MA had
died intestate and left behind a widow and further descendants. The property
always rested (owned) with the 2 wives of MA. The application of section 33 via
section 35, would only limit to the one half of the property that belonged to
Filomena.
11. The one third of Filomena’s property received by MA upon her death,
would then devolve upon the children of MA through Filomena and Shyam Bai
i.e., the Plaintiffs and John Anthony. In other words, the one-third share would be
divided amongst the four children of MA and Shyam Bai. The defendants i.e. the
th
children of John Anthony would receive portions out of only the 1/5 share that
fell in the share of John Anthony. The one fifth share received by Shyam Bai
through MA, would assimilate into her property and the division of said property
upon her death would include this share.
12. In regard to the half of the property in the name of Shyam Bai, the same
would be distributed only amongst her children. There is no concept of joint
family property as under Hindu law, applicable here. When property is inherited,
it is done so as tenants-in-common. It is not the case that Shyam Bai had willed
C.A. No.(s) .../2026 @ SLP (C) No(s) 9449 of 2020 Page 7 of 9

her portion to anyone. She too had died intestate. Section 38 would govern the
scenario. It provides:
“38. Where intestate has left no child, but grandchild or
grandchildren. Where the intestate has not left surviving him any child
but has left a grandchild or grandchildren and no more remote
descendant through a deceased grandchild, the property shall belong to
his surviving grandchild if there is one, or shall be equally divided
among all his surviving grandchildren.”

13. Two issues, which we need not deal in detail, are the issue of benami
transactions and the validity of the second marriage performed by MA. Both these
issues were not pressed by any party.
13.1 Still, in respect of benami¸ we take note of the submission of Mr.
7
Gaurav Agrawal, senior counsel, that Valliammal v. Subramaniam ,
which holds that, ‘ intention of the parties is the essence of
the benami transaction and the money must have been provided by the
party invoking the doctrine of benami. ’ would cover the present scenario
where it has been unequivocally stated that MA bought the property for
the benefit of his two wives out of love and affection.
13.2 The status of Shyam Bai as wife of and later widow of MA is not in
dispute; the parties are ad idem that the dispute was limited to the extent
of the inheritance rights of the parties and not the existence of such a
right itself.

7
(2004) 7 SCC 233
C.A. No.(s) .../2026 @ SLP (C) No(s) 9449 of 2020 Page 8 of 9

14. Having arrived at that conclusion, we hold that the judgment of the Courts
below is set aside. All consequences to follow. The appeal is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.


……………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL )



……………………………………………J.
( NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH )

New Delhi;
July 30, 2026

C.A. No.(s) .../2026 @ SLP (C) No(s) 9449 of 2020 Page 9 of 9