Balwant Singh vs Baldev Singh and Another

Chopra, J.—Mst. Bhagwan Kaur daughter of Sapuran Singh of Bhawanigarh sold 2 bighas 15 biswas of her land to Rulia Singh, father of Balwant Singh Petitioner, for Rs. 192/8/ with the sanction of the Collector for laying a garden. Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh respondents, her minor sons through the guardianship of their father, Mukand Singh, instituted the present suit on 24th Magher, 2003, for a declaration that the sale would not affect their reversionary rights after the death of the alienor. In the plaint it was alleged that Mst. Bhagwan Kaur had got the land in dispute by way of gift from her mother, Mst. Mehtab Kaur, and that she had no right to alienate it without necessity. The Defendant contested the suit on various grounds. The trial Sub-Judge decreed the suit holding that the land in the hands of Mst. Bhagwan Kaur was ancestral qua her sons and that no necessity for the alienation had been proved. On defendant''s appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, concurred with the findings of the trial Sub-Judge and dismissed the appeal. The vendee has come to this Court in revision.

After going through the record and hearing the counsel of the parties at some length I am constrained to observe that the Courts below have approached either of the two main points involved in the case from a wrong angle and, therefore, have arrived at wrong conclusions. The alienation was by a female and for that reason it was not necessary to see whether the property in her hands was ancestral. The main question was as to how the property devolved upon Mst. Bhagwan Kaur from her mother, Mst. Mehtab Kaur, and what was the nature of the estate of the former.

The land sold comprised Khasra No. 2869 and according to the entries in the revenue records this Khasra Number belonged to Mst. Ram Kaur, widow of Lal Singh, during the last settlement of 1960-61. Ex. PA, a copy of the genealogical table, shows that this Lal Singh was the uncle of Sapuran Singh, father of Mst. Bhagwan Kaur. In the Jamabandi of 1987-88 the land was entered in the name of Mst. Mehtabo widow of Sapuran Singh, but we do not know how she got it from Mst. Ram Kaur. It may be that Mst. Mehtabo, as representative of her husband, succeeded collaterally to the property of Mst. Ram Kaur on her death, but that is not the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence that has been brought on the record. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that Hardit Singh, the common ancestor of Sapuran Singh and Lal Singh, ever occupied the land. The land in the hands of Sapuran Singh or his widow MSt. Mehtab Kaur could not, therefore, be regarded as ancestral. In any case, if Mst. Bhagwan Kaur had got the land on the death of her mother Mst. Mehtab Kaur by succession, she would not have an absolute right to permanently alienate it without legal necessity. A daughter succeeding to the property of her mother acquires only a life interest in the estate, and she acquires what is generally known as widow''s estate. But, on the other hand, if Mst. Bhagwan Kaur had got the suit land from her mother as an absolute gift, her right of alienation over it would undoubtedly be unrestricted.

As has already been observed, the Plaintiffs in Clause 3 of their plaint clearly and unequivocally stated that Mst. Bhagwan Kaur got the land from Mst. Mehtab Kaur by a gift in the latter''s lifetime. Nihal Singh, a witness examined by the Plaintiffs, deposed that Mst. Mehtabo had gifted the suit land to her daughter, Mst. Bhagwan Kaur, at the time of the latter''s marriage. This clear admission on the part of the Plaintiffs and their witness can lead to the only conclusion that Mst. Bhagwan Kaur did not get the suit land from her mother by descent after her death but by a gift in her lifetime. The natural consequence is that Mst. Bhagwan Kaur got it as a full and complete owner, and that her estate was not analogous, to a widow''s estate. The alienation in such at case made by Mst. Bhagwan Kaur could not be impugned by her sons, the Plaintiffs.

Another fact that may here be mentioned is that the Plaintiffs were admittedly not even born when Mst. Bhagwan Kaur got the land in suit by gift from her mother. I do not see any substance in the contention of S. Sukhdev Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondents that the gift only amounted to an acceleration of succession and therefore it could not make any change in the nature of the estate acquired by the donee. There is not an iota of evidence on record that the gift was of the entire property which Mst. Mehtab Kaur possessed, and that it was in favour of the sole next heir. These are facts which the Plaintiffs ought to have proved to get rid of the ordinary legal consequences that flow from a gift under the customary law by which the Plaintiffs allege they are governed.

As regards necessity again, both the Courts below have wrongly interpreted the documents placed on record by the Defendant and have arrived at erroneous results. (After considering the evidence the judgment concluded.) I would, therefore, hold that necessity for the sale stands fully established.

In the result this petition is accepted with costs, the decree of the District Judge set aside and the Suit dismissed.