Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5806 OF 2008
Dalip Kaur (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. ..Appellants
Versus
Ram Kishan (D) Thr. Lr(s). & Ors. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
22.09.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 551 of 1982.
The appellants herein are the original defendants.
Respondent no.1 in this appeal, namely, Ram Kishan (now dead
and represented through his legal heir) filed a suit for possession
rd
as the owner of the 1/3 share of the suit property against the
contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein). The trial
Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court reversed the
judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
The High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court
1
and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the
suit came to be decreed by the High Court.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
Harnam Singh was the original owner of the property. He
died on 12.11.1934, leaving behind his wife Prem Kaur and three
daughters, namely, Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur. After
the death of Harnam Singh in the year 1934, Prem Kaur
succeeded to the property in question as per the prevailing
custom in the area. She executed a gift deed on 19.09.1951 in
favour of three daughters, namely, Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur and
rd
Raj Kaur to the extent of 1/3 each. Basant Kaur, the first
daughter of Harnam Singh and Prem Kaur expired on
25.03.1975, leaving behind her husband – Ram Kishan s/o Telu.
Basant Kaur had executed a will in favour of her husband – Ram
Kishan. Based on the said will, he filed a suit for possession of
rd
1/3 share in the property.
It is the case of the defendants that upon the death of their
sister Basant Kaur, the suit property devolved on heirs of her
father Harnam Singh; since they are the only heirs of their father,
they are entitled to the property as reversioners.
2
3. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between
the parties. The only question to be decided in this appeal is, as
to whether the trial Court and the High Court are justified in
rd
concluding that Basant Kaur was entitled to 1/3 share in the
property of Prem Kaur, and consequently, as to whether the
plaintiff being the husband of Basant Kaur is entitled to the said
rd
1/3 share.
4. Indisputably, the suit property was gifted by Prem Kaur by
executing a registered deed in favour of her three daughters,
namely, Basant Kaur (wife of the contesting respondent) and
Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur (defendant nos. 1 and 2) on 19.09.1951
in equal shares. The possession of the property was also
delivered to them. Mutation no. 1555 was sanctioned on
26.6.1952 in their favour respectively. The gift deed, as well as,
the consequent mutation are not questioned by anybody at any
point of time.
5. The husband of Prem Kaur, viz. Harnam Singh, expired in
the year 1934. The parties are Hindus. The properties are
situated at Punjab. It may be noted at this point that though the
Benaras school of Mitakshara law covers practically the whole of
North India, Punjab is an exception, since here the Mitakshara
3
law has been modified considerably by custom on certain points.
The whole matter is viewed keeping in mind customary Hindu
law prevailing in the state of Punjab during the relevant period of
time.
6 Prem Kaur, being the mother of Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur
and Raj Kaur, gifted the properties situated at Manauli, tehsil
Kharar in favour of her three daughters. Prem Kaur had a limited
estate in the property. Despite the same, the three daughters did
not object to the alienation. On the contrary, they accepted the
gift and got their names mutated in the revenue records.
7. Learned author Sir Dinshaw Mulla, while commenting in his
nd
book Hindu Law (22 edition, §191) mentions that a reversioner,
whether male or female, who consents to an alienation (including
by way of gift) by a widow or other limited heir made without legal
necessity, or to an invalid surrender, and transferees from him,
are precluded from disputing the validity of the alienation,
though he may have received no consideration for his consent.
In §192, it is observed by the learned author that where a
widow or other limited heir enters into a family arrangement or a
compromise which involves an alienation of the estate, the
reversioner who has been a party to and has benefitted from the
4
transaction is precluded from questioning the alienation, and so
are his descendants. There is no question in a case of this kind of
a transfer of spes successionis by the reversioner. The
reversioner, being a party to a transaction cannot repudiate it.
This Court in the case of Krisha Behari Lal v. Gulabchand &
, (1971) 1 SCC 837, has held that where a widow entered into
Ors.
a compromise with a presumptive reversioner and was accepted
as the absolute owner of a portion of the properties, and gave up
her claim in the remaining properties, the presumptive
reversioners who themselves ultimately became the reversioners
were estopped from challenging the transaction. It was held by
the Supreme Court that the settlement could also be considered
as a family arrangement binding on the parties.
8. In the matter on hand, on facts we find that though the
properties were gifted by Prem Kaur in favour of her three
daughters, the said gift by her as a limited owner was treated by
the three daughters, who were the only legal representatives to
their parents, as a surrender of properties by their mother in
their favour. We find that the alienation by way of gift by Prem
Kaur is more in the nature of a family arrangement, inasmuch as
5
she must have intended to avoid any future disputes after her
demise. All the three daughters are beneficiaries of such
arrangement. As mentioned supra, all the three daughters got
their names mutated by Mutation No. 1555 sanctioned on
26.6.1952. The Court leans strongly in favour of family
arrangements/alienations in favour of all legal representatives, to
bring about harmony in the family and to do justice to its various
members and avoid future disputes. We also find that the
alienation by way of gift by the mother in favour of the three
daughters as far back as 1951, under which all daughters were
given equal shares in the property, and by which the mother
relinquished all her rights in favour of the three daughters, was
permissible under the prevailing customary law. Prem Kaur’s
three daughters accepted such agreement with a bona fide
intention. Prem Kaur also did not think of her personal
advantage while settling the properties among her three
daughters equally, bona fide. In this view of the matter, we affirm
the decision of the High Court, which, approving the judgment of
the Trial Court, decreed the suit inasmuch as the late Ram
Kishan, being the plaintiff, was held to be entitled to get
possession as owner of 1/3 of the property.
6
9. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
…………………………………….J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
NEW DELHI; …………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
7