Coram: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra
Judgment Authored by: Justice Indu Malhotra; delivered on 01.07.2019
Case Analysis of Arshnoor Singh versus Harpal Kaur & Ors.;Civil Appeal No. 5124 OF 2019
Facts of the Case: The Appellant is the great-grandson of the Lal Singh, who is the owner of certain parcel of land in Punjab. Lal Singh had one son, Inder Singh, while Inder Singh was having 3 sons – Gurcharan Singh, Dharam Singh, Swaran Singh and one daughter – Dharam Kaur. Ashnoor Singh, who is the Appellant in the present case, is the son of Dharam Singh.
Lal Singh Passed away in 1951 and his entire property was inherited by Inder Singh, who further during his lifetime, partitioned the property vide decree from Court, in equal proportion between his three sons. The three sons then, transferred ¼ of the entire property to Inder Singh for his sustenance. Hence all three sons and their father (Inder Singh) had ¼ share of the property of Lal Singh. Inder Singh expired in 1970 and his ¼ share was inherited by his heirs i.e, his wife, three sons and one daughter.
The present case pertains to the property which came to the share of Dharam Singh. His only son, the appellant herein was born in the year 1985 from his 1st wife. Dharam Singh sold his share of property to the Respondent No. 01 – Smt. Harpal Kaur, without any consideration in the year 1999. Thereafter in the year 1999 itself, Dharam Singh married the respondent no. 01.
In the year 2004, after the appellant become major, he filed a suit for declaration that the suit property was coparcenary property, and that the sale deed which was executed by his father in favour of the respondent no. 01 is illegal and void. During the pendency of lis, the respondent no. 01 further executed sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 02 & 03 in the year 2007.
The issues which were before the Supreme Court:
Whether the suit property was coparcenary property or self-acquired property of Dharam Singh?
The validity of the Sale deeds, first which was executed in favour of R-1 and further to R-2 & R-3
What the Supreme Court hold?
The Succession in the present case opened in 1951, i.e., after the death of Lal Singh which is prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956, hence Inder Singh inherited his father’s property in accordance with Old Mitakshara Law. It was opined by the Supreme Court after referring to judicial precedents and Mulla’s Commentary, that under Mitakshara Law, whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees below him, would get an equal right as coparceners in that property.
It was further opined that after the enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956, the aforesaid position has changed. Now, if a person inherits a self-acquired property from his paternal ancestors, the said property becomes his self-acquired property and does not remain coparcenary property.
It was held that since in this case, the succession was opened prior to the enactment of the statute, hence it will be governed by old Mitakshara Law. In light of the above, it was further opined that the suit property which came to the share of Late Dharam Singh through partition, remained coparcenary property qua his son – the appellant herein, who became a coparcener upon his birth w.e.f. 1985. Hence, the sale deed was executed in favour of the Respondent no. 01 after the Appellant became the Coparcener of the property.
The Respondent also failed to establish in this case, that if there was a legal necessity, or benefit to the estate for the purported sale in favour of R-1 in the year 1999. Hence, the sale deed executed in favour of the Respondent No. 01 was declared as null and void.
Further, invoking the Doctrine of lis pendens, the sale deed(s) executed by the Respondent No. 01 in favour of the R-2 & 3 was also declared to be null and void.
