Widowed Daughter-In-Law Loses 1/3 Share Claim To Mother-In-Law’s Shop Bought With Her Savings And Pension, Gujarat HC Upholds Dismissal

In brief

The question

1. Whether the plaintiff had established a legal entitlement to a share in the shop despite the Trial Court’s adverse finding that it was not ancestral property and was not purchased from the savings of her father-in-law and husband?

The court held

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the second appeal in limine, confirming the District Court’s judgment and decree, with no order as to costs.

It also directed

The connected civil application for stay was also disposed of.

01Facts

The plaintiff, the widow of defendant No. 1’s son, sued for a share in a shop purchased in 2013, claiming it was acquired from ancestral property or from the income of her husband.

¶ 4–4.1, 6.1

The Trial Court found that she had not proved the shop was ancestral or purchased from the relevant family savings, but nevertheless declared her entitled to a one-third share and restrained the defendants from dealing with the shop.

¶ 4.2–4.3

On the defendants’ appeal, the District Court reversed that decree and dismissed the suit, finding that defendant No. 1 had purchased the shop from her own savings and pension income.

¶ 4.4, 6.1

The plaintiff then brought this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶ 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the plaintiff had established a legal entitlement to a share in the shop despite the Trial Court’s adverse finding that it was not ancestral property and was not purchased from the savings of her father-in-law and husband?

¶ 8–10.1

ii.2. Whether the District Court’s reversal disclosed a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?

¶ 11–13

03Law Applied

Section 100 CPC confines a second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law; the High Court may not substitute its view for the first appellate court’s findings of fact unless those findings are contrary to mandatory law or settled legal principles, based on inadmissible evidence, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by perversity.

¶ 11–12

The Court relied on Jaichand (Dead) through LRs v. Sahnulal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864, and Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 555, for those limits on second-appeal review.

¶ 11–12

It also stated that ancestral property, under Hindu law, is property inherited through four generations of the paternal line.

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

04Reasoning

The Trial Court’s negative finding on the plaintiff’s claim that the shop was ancestral or purchased from family savings left no basis for its separate award of a one-third share.

¶ 8–9

The first appellate court also found that defendant No. 1 purchased the shop from her own savings and pension after her husband’s death, and the plaintiff had not challenged the adverse finding on Issue No. 1 by cross-objection or otherwise.

¶ 6.1–6.2, 9–10

Applying Section 100 CPC, the High Court found no perversity, gross irregularity, or other basis for disturbing the first appellate court’s findings.

¶ 11–13

05Holding

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the second appeal in limine, confirming the District Court’s judgment and decree, with no order as to costs.

¶ 13–14

The connected civil application for stay was also disposed of.

¶ 15

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF