Jagdev Singh and Others vs Major Singh and Others

Karam Chand Puri, J.

Plaintiffs/appellants have directed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.8.1987 passed by Shri Manmohan Singh Ahluwalia, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which the separate appeals preferred by defendants the parties against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1984 passed by Shri N.S. Mundra, Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana was accepted and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. The brief facts of the present case are that Major Singh respondent executed five sale deeds from 83.1981 to 14.5.1981. In the sale deed dated 13.5.1981 in favour of Malkiat Kaur in respect of 19 kanals 10 marlas of land for an ostensible price of Rs. 30,000/-. Sale deed dated 14.5.1981 in favour of Kulwant Kaur regarding land measuring 20 canals 14 marls of land for Rs. 30,000/-. Sale deed dated 8.5.1981 in favour of Jaswant Kaur in respect of land measuring 5K-18M for Rs. 6000/-. Sale deed dated 8.5.1981 in favour of Sant Singh in respect of land measuring 5K-17M for Rs. 6000/- and sale deed dated 8.5.1981 in favour of Dharam Singh in respect of land measuring 5K-17M for Rs. 6000/- and delivered possession to them. His minor sons Jagdev Singh and Avtar Singh, through their mother and next friend Ajit Kaur filed civil suit and challenged those sale deeds on the ground that minors and their father constituted Joint Hindu family. The suit land was their coparcenary property and Major Singh vendor and that Major Singh has executed the sale deeds without consideration and legal necessity or for benefit of the estate and as such these sale deeds were not binding on the minor sons and they are entitled to the possession of the disputed land.

In the written statements, which the vendees filed separately, on identical grounds, they pleaded that there was no legal marriage between Major Singh and Ajit Kaur so that the minors are not the sons of vendor and have no locus stand to file the suit They took further objections that suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, and that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and cause of action.

On merits, they alleged that the suit land was not ancestral/coparcenary property of the vendor and the plaintiffs, and that they are bona fide purchasers for value and consideration, so that they are owners and in possession of the disputed land. They asserted that Major Singh has competently effected the disputed sale deeds in their favor for consideration and for benefit of the estate.

In replication, plaintiffs reiterated the version set out in the plaint and controverted those of the written statement.

From the pleadings of the parties following issues and additional issue were framed:-

Whether the plaintiffs have got locus standi to file the present suit? OPP

Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes and parties? OPD

Whether the property in dispute is Hindu Undivided Family Coparcenary property? OPP

Whether the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 are void? OPP

Whether the vendees are bona-fide purchasers for consideration? OPD

Relief.

The parties had led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. In the light of the same, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit and partly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.1984.

Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and decree dated 01.09.1984, the defendants preferred separate First Appeals. The learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.1987 has accepted the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 1.10.1987 passed by the 1st Appellate Court below, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants.

Learned counsel for plaintiffs-appellants has submitted that following substantial questions of law have been arisen in the present regular second appeal for adjudication

i) Whether the Court below has misread the documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties?

ii) Whether the court below has drawn conclusion against the well established law and whether the gift by donor in favour of done, who is; the only grandson and a member of HUF, of the HUF coparcenary property will be a case of accelerated succession?

iii) Whether in case of accelerated succession the nature of HUF coparcenary property will change to non-ancestral and self-acquired property?

iv) Whether after affirming the findings recorded by the trial court on issue No. 6 that vendees were not bona fide purchasers for consideration the appellate court had to decree the suit as held by trial Court?

There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below that the alienations made by Major Singh during the short span of few days are without any legal necessity. The trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs to the extent of 2/3rd share by observing Major Singh was competent to alienate 1/3rd share being coparcener and was not competent to alienate the remaining 2/3rd share being coparcenary property. However, that finding recorded by the trial Court is against the spirit of Full Bench authority of this Court in Manohar Lal and Another Vs. Dewan Chand and Others, the law laid down by this Court in the said ruling is that in case the alienation in respect of joint Hindu family is without any legal necessity, it has to be set aside as a whole. However, the main controversy in the present lis is whether the finding of the first Appellate Court to the effect that plaintiffs have failed to prove that the property is joint Hindu family is wrong and is a result of misreading and misinterpreting the evidence on the file or against the settled principles of law.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since Major Singh has got the property from his grandfather by way of gift, this will amount to accelerated inheritance and the nature of property shall remain as coparcenary property. To fortify his argument, counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar Vs. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar and Another, .

The trial Court framed issue No. 4, whether the property in dispute is Hindu Undivided Family Coparcenary property? The trial Court returned the finding on that issue in favour of plaintiffs. The learned trial Court observed that the property was inherited by Anokh Singh from his father. It is also observed by the trial Court that Major Singh got the suit property from his grandfather through a gift deed dated 20.4.1960 but since the same has come from ancestors and as such its character of joint Hindu family coparcenary property shall remain as it is.

The ratio of judgment Valliamma Achi v. Nagappa Chettiar and another AIR 1976 S.C. 1153 is distinguishable from the facts of the present case as that relates to execution of Will by father in respect of Joint Hindu Family property giving only residue to his son. The principle of accelerated inheritance would apply only if the property is received by Will or Gift by the person who is actually entitled to get the land by inheritance from a collateral.

In the present case, the Gift is by Anokh Singh in favour of his grand son Major Singh. By way of natural succession, Major Sigh would not have got the property as Lal Singh and other legal heirs of Anokh Singh were alive. So, it is not getting the property in the same manner as that of inheritance but one line of descendants have been totally ignored by the Gift dated 20.4.1960 executed by Anokh Singh in favour of Major Singh.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in authority C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar Vs. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar and Another, held that, if the property is received by ancestor through Gift and Will that loses the character of ancestral property. Similar view was taken by this Court in Kapur Chand and another Vs. Des Raj--> .

So, finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court that plaintiffs have failed to prove that property is a Joint Hindu Family property does not call for any interference. So, the questions of law raised by the plaintiffs-appellants stand determined against them.

Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and same stands dismissed with costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.