High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/1893/1989allowed

(O&M) Chakkan Lal v. Ram Pyari And ORS.

2026-05-19Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil15 pages

! " #$ % & %

'' (( %

( )))""

(( * "& + ((

( % ) )))) "

% ,

'' (( %

( )))""

(( * "& + ((

( % ) )))) "

% -

'' (( %

( )))""

(( * "& + ((

( % ) )))) "

% ./

'' (( %

( )))""

(( * "& + ((

( % ) )))) "

#! !

! $ %

1$(

) # %

% () & '() *#+ !

(+ ,- #+ ! $ .### //// %

% (2 # 0 # ) % !!

%1 %

2 !

3 #! 4!% # ! % 4

! 56+1. 1.

.7! ! #

% % !!8

2 .4 ( ! 0

9#: $;3# : < #

.% + : #< !% # # % )

! # $ !!8

# ! #

!! %2 !!

% ! 8 $ ! 8 $

> %# $ !! ! $ % ! !

6 ! !!& + # .. $.

!!% % %

! %4 3 ! $ ! # ?5% ! !

)44 ? !! 0#: #,

, 5# ! $ 3

&4 : <@, # > !

4 7 +

= A+B

9# : $ : < !!8

)44 ?

3 ! % # !3 ! 3 ! !3 #!

!!)44 ? 3 ! .7 4 7

%8 2

9 ! !

! $ % % =

% ! !% 3 !

, ! % %2 ! ! ! # ! $% % ! !!1

!! 8 $ % %!

! %

% ! !! !

$ 7 !!8

! % %2 #! 1 $ #

@ ! !

! ! !

!! ! !! ! 1 $ . ! % ! 8 # ! !!1

3 !

! !!1

#! 8 $ !

!!1

!! %

# ! !

# #% > % ! ! 8 $

3 ! #!

+ % : :<@, # &4 # ! 3 ! ! 4

2 ! ! % ! % ! 8 $ 3 ## %

! ##

- 3 ! ! 8 $ 7> ! # !

4 !!8

! ! # 4 ! %!! # %

# # 2 #

locus standi! ! !

6 ! ! ! & + % % ! !

% !! 8 $ #! ! ! ! % %%

> !%! # ! !

Whether the suit property is coparcenary property of the plaintiff qua defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4? OPP. Whether the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 constituted a Joint Hindu Family and whether defendant No.1 was the Karta thereof? OPP.

Whether the impugned gift is invalid and void and whether the subsequent transfer of property in dispute by defendants No.2 to 4 and defendants No.6 to 13 is invalid and substantiable? OPP. Whether defendants No.6 to 13 are bonafide purchasers for value without notice and are protected under Section 41 of T.P. Act? OPD.

Whether suit is within time? OPD.

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and consent?OPD.

Whether the parties are governed by custom, if so what is the said custom? OPD.

Whether defendants No.2 to 4 had paid Rs.20,000/0 on account of debts which defendant No.1 owed to various persons? OPD. Whether defendants No.2 to 4 had installed a tube well in the land in suit at a cost of Rs.15,000/0 and had got the land levelled? If so to what effect? OPD.

3 Relief.

Then subsequently issues No.2, 5 and 7 were recasted as under on 27.7.1981:

Whether the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 do not constitute the Joint Hindu Family and defendant No.1 is not the Karta of the said Joint Hindu Family? OPD.

Whether suit is barred by time? OPD.

Whether the parties are governed by custom? OPD.

% !!

% ) " +

)

# 3 ! &4

# % ! % !! > %

! .7#= % 3 ! !! $ #

! !

! # !

%2 ! > !

! % ! # !! % + % =

! # % !

% #

> ! !

% % #

!! %2 # %

6 ! !!& + !

!% # ! %

% # ! 4 #

# ! & #

! ! % % % 2 ! ! > % 2 !12 !3

% % # = ! 3 !

> !

1 % +

:<@, #

2 % % ! ! # ! ! % > 3 #% !

! #

! ! $ #

! !% # !%

% 1 > !

% !! ! 4

! %% % 2 7 > %2 % ! !

6 ! !!& + #

! ! ! ! %

# !

! "

# $ . 3

! ! # #

% % ) % # ) !

!!!

# ! ! 8 5

6 + > $!% ) # '

"Whether the suit property is coparcenary property of the plaintiff qua defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4?" >

% % % %

! ! # ! ! .7 %2 ! !35 !!1

)44 ?

35 #! ! # ! : :<@, # &4 # , 7 ( 0

9 # $ #: < #%

! ! % &4 ! !!

! 2

!35 2 #

!! ) # > $ !!# !3 5 &4 ! !

!12 5 ! %&'&() $*(+,-./).,

) !! 3 # ) ! % ) % ! !

8 ! !

% &4 0

9 2 !35 #%

! % &4 % ? 5 35

8 !! !

% .7CD=&1E#

D=&F# $7#D=&18+#D=&17 D=&1.

= % ! &4

> D=&18+!

04 #$ #> #- : # : ! %!%

# ! %

9 ! ( !

% 0

. < 0

7% 6 %9 > ) #)4:CD=&1E#

! = % 35 ! !)44 ? # ) = 9 3 " %

) D=&1 7 #%

! ! %

! ! &4 ) # ! !%

! ! !)44 ? % 9 !1 2 !35 6 # ! % #

! % ) % # !# !!! ! 4 % %

% %

% 6 !35 CD=&1E# :5 CD=&1E#9 $ CD=&1.E D=% &1 8: &1

9 % %

% &4 $ % ! % 35 2 !

7 ) % !

! %

% ) :

% ! ! &4 G 8 # % !

! !

!12 . = !

% !

) %

> % %

&4 5 % 0' (

&+,1.$*(/) 2 3-345 '

"In this respect we find that proprietary rights were granted to Ajmer Singh in the land in dispute because his father had owned land in areas now forming part of West Pakistan and it was in lieu of the land abandoned by Bishen Singh consequent upon the partition of the country that Ajmer Singh got the proprietary rights in the land in dispute. In the circumstances the land in dispute should partake the character of the land in lieu of which it was given to Ajmer Singh. As the land left in West Pakistan, in lieu of which the proprietary rights in the land in dispute were conferred upon Ajmer Singh, was admittedly ancestral of Ajmer Singh, having been held by his father Bishen Singh, the land in dispute should be held to be ancestral of Ajmer Singh qua his son.

The question, as to whether in the case of an exchange the land received in exchange is ancestral if the land given in exchange was ancestral, arose in Ghanus v. Imam Din and others, 57 P.R. 1910, and was answered by Shah Din, J. in the affirmative. Same view was taken by a Division Bench (Scott0Smith and Martineau, JJ.) in Thakur, etc. v. Ram Singh, 120 P.R. 1918 and Abdul Raoof and Harrison, JJ.in Mokha and others v. Dhan Singh, 63 I.C. 719.

/ another v. Pir Muhammad and another, 3 P.L.R. 1901, it was held by Harris and Rattigan, JJ. that where the amount of compensation awarded by the Government for ancestral land is used to purchase other land the property so purchased becomes ancestral property as the transaction is in the nature of an exchange. In our opinion, the principle enunciated in the above cases, even though they were of exchange, would hold good in the present case also as the proprietary rights in the land in dispute were conferred upon Ajmer Singh in lieu of the land left by his father in areas now forming part of West Pakistan."

3 # ! ) %

! % ! %

!1 2 !35 ! ( !

% ! %

! % !

+ =

% % %

! 3 2 ! #

) ! !

! % # % 2 !

35 #, #

! ! ! =

! !!

! .7 ! !

, 7 ( $8

2 =

! !! $ =

6 ! #

! !! % ! ! #

5! % 6 7 %&6(+,8.*9+-+# 6 ) ,

! = !

@ 5 =

12. There is a long catena of decisions holding that a gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property is void. It is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Instead, we may refer to the following statement of law in Mayne's Hindu Law, Eleventh Edition, Article 382 : 0 "It is now equally well settled in all the Provinces that a gift or devise by a coparcener in a Mitakshara family of his undivided interest is wholly invalid .............. A coparcener cannot make a gift of his undivided interest in the family property, movable or immovable, either to a stranger or to a relative except for purposes warranted by special texts."

13. We may also refer to a Passage from Mulla's Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, Article 258, which is as follows : 0 "Gift of undivided interest. 0 (1) According to the Mitakshara law as applied in all the States, no coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in coparcenary property by gift. Such transaction being void altogether there is no estoppel or other kind of personal bar which preclude the donor from asserting his right to recover the transferred property. He may, however, make a gift of his interest with the consent of the other coparceners."

! % ! ! $

3 5 % = !

5#81 !! + % # 2 %

% #%

= % ! !!

! % ) %

> $

, ! ! %2 % 2

> $

% !

6 ! !!& + G % #! $

! %

% ! % ! ! %2 ! 2 % !! !

7 > !

2 % % ! !# !

6 ! !!& + #..% !

$ % % ) 2

# ! ! ) % %2

. + # % 2 ! !% ) ! !

1 !! > ) % !

> $ %

1 8 !12

) 2

# 5

6 +

.7% 6 %9 > ) # < . % +

: 9 #< % ! .7

- = % 35 ! !! $ # 2 = ! !! $ #

# % ! !!1

# ! % !!1

)44 ?

% # #! # !

: %

6 +

& #! #

! %

% ( # %

).-)/./3 Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No