Kamal Singh (Deceased) Thro Lrs Devi @ Jayanti And ORS. v. Hem Lata & ORS






    
  
















  

 
 !

"
 #$%$&
'!
  !
(
)'
*
+$,$'
$
 











--&&$
. 
/%
($$
$
 
















-
    


   



# $
$$-
'! "
 $"

0$%'
 '"
 $"
1
 
$--&&$


$
# %$"
 $"
1

2 '%$,
'! "
 $"
1
-
0



3
3
3
3


   
-
0

$

4
-&$''11
1'&
$
 '
1
 &$$'
$
-%$
'5  '
&$'%'!
 $
1$
0

 '
1$ 
6$
 6
'
-'
1
$!'

& $&
&$

 
7
1
89:


 $
 
1
 
$&
&$
%$ '!
9
;$$&

%$&$
1 &&,
$'&
$
 '2
'
 
-&$'
'

$
6' '
 
 
$
1
'&&$!
($- "
< '&
$&6$&"
)''


=$'$2$


< 
 '
--,
'
$ $&
$,
$
5'
/'
=$%'&,
1
 
-&$''11
)1$
0

6$
;$$
< 
-&$''11
2'!
$ ! 
1
;$$
$

< 
&$' '-
1
 
-&$''11
$
1$
0

6$

'$&
< ,
6

 
1
%
$&!6'
 '
% 
$
1$
0

 '
1$ 

'

$
 '
%$'$!
$
$



-'
$,
1'$ '$&
&-
)1$
0

'
2 
1
1$
0


/


 
'1&  

1$
0

$
-


$
$&

1
 
 '
--,
1
$
'$'
1

9"9":
'
$';$
0
89











$
9
< 
$%
'
'&&!$&"
 &&
$
'
)1$
0

$&6$,



%$'

'1&  
1
&'> 
$
6$

1
 
'-'!
%'
$
 
'%
1
!'$'
1
 
$&

/
$

&!$&
 ',

&&
 
 '
&$
< 
%$;
$& 
1
 
--,
6$

 

1

 "
:
-
$ 
0
$&
'$'
-$
1%
1$
0


1$











0

)1$
0

$%-

$;
1 '2&
-'
1
 
 '
--,

 9
< 
-&$''11
$%

;6
$2 
 
$&

/ 
 
 '
8
< 
 '
6$

2,
 
$--&&$ 1$
0

&$'%'!
 $
 
-&$''11
$

'! 
'
 
 '
--,
?
6$
'
 $
 
 '
--,
'
$ $&
$,
$
/@=
?
6$
&$'%
 $
-$'
$
!
2,

%$,
&$6
1
$5- 
$
 
-&$''11
$
2
'

2

)1$
0

6$
'

1
%,
$
 

 $
$

&
 
 '
&$

 
$6'!
1$
=  %"

' %
6$
!$
1%
 
 '
--,
$
1$
0

-

 
$6'!
1$
 $

$
-
$
&$!
$% 
1
%,

 
%$'$!
1
-
0

$

4
-&$''11
$

> '
%,
1
'
6
$%
< 
$6'!
1$
2&''!
 
-$'
1
1$
0

-  $
 
 '
--,
1
$
'$'
1













9"9":
$
 
 '
6$
-$,

2
'%'

)1$
0

$&
1'&
6'
$%
'!
 
 '
1
 
-&$''11

 
$%
&'

=%
 
-&$'!
1
 
-$'"
1&&6'!
' 
6
1$%

8

1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-owners in possession of the land in dispute and defendant No. 1 has got no right, title or interest whatsoever in the same? OPP

2. Whether impugned sale deed, dated 18.10.2007 bearing vasika No. 6317 in favour of the defendant No. 1 qua suit land is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and liable to be set aside? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs have not come with clean hand and have concealed and suppressed the material facts from the court? OPD

7. Whether suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

8. Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

9. Relief.

?


-
 
$"
-$'
6
!'
-- ''

&$
' 
$
$1
$'!
$!

%"
 
&$
''$&
A''&
+ !
'
)'''"
$&6$&
'
5 !%
$
88
 
 
 '
$
 &$
 
-&$''11

2

1
 
 '
--,
$
 
$&

'
1$ 
1
 
$--&&$ 1$
0

$
'&&!$&"
 &&
$
'
$
'11 '
> $
 
'! 
1
 
-&$''11
$
 
$--&&$ 1$
0

6$
$'
1%
$&'$'!
 
 '
&$

$'!
$,
$!

 
 '
&$

9
!!'"
 
$--&&$ 1$
0

1'&
1'
$--$&
21
 
&$
''$&
)''


+ !
"
$&6$&
6 '

6$
'%'
'
!%
$
 
$
 8 
!!'
2,
 


5 !%
$
 
1
2
 
A 
2&6"
 
-
$--$&
$
2
1'&

0'


6$

-
 
-


 
> '''


($
 &
1
 
$--&&$
$!


 $
2
 
A 
2&6
$
%' $"
%'  
$
%' $--&'
 
-&$'!
$
' 

 
$
 
5 !%
$
2
-$
%&,

 
2$'
1
 %'
$
5


B
 
A 
2&6
$
'!
 
1$ 
 $
% 
1
-
0

$

4
-&$''11
$
' '
 
 '
--,
1%
 '
1$ 
$
'
$
2
6!&,
&
 $
 
 '
--,
'
$ $&
$
$,
--,
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,
&'> ' %
)
C7 '2'
)D:
$
2
6!&,
'!
2,
 
&$
A''&
+ !
$
 $
1''!
$
2
$11'%
2,
 
&$
1'
--&&$
A 
< 
$
!'
1
'!'!
 
&'> ' %
)
'
 $
 
$%
6$

-&$"
6 $
' 
'

> '

2
-&$
"
 
'%- !
5 !%
$
 
2

$'
$
 
$--$&
2
$&&6



 
 
$"
&$
 &
1
-

$

$!


 $
 
'

'&&!$&',"
'1'%',
'
 


5 !%
1
2
 
A 
2&6
$
2
 
A 
2&6
$
'! &,
& 
 $
 
 '
--,
'
$ $&
$
$,
--,
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,
$
1$ 
1
B'
'!
$
' '
 
$%
1%
'
1$ 
B $!6$$
$
'
+$%$2$'
C7 '2'

B $!6$$
'
 6

2
6
'
-'
2'!
$
  $
'
 
 '
&$
$&!6'
/$'
'!
$
'
6$
'! &,
 
 $
 
 '
--,
6$
$ $&
$
$,
--,
'
 
$
1
1$ 
1
 
1$
$
 
$&

6$
'! &,
&

2
6'  
&!$&
 ',
"
 
$--$&
2
'%'
$
1''!
 
2,
2
 
A 
2&6
2
$11'%

8

!$
 
 -
1
 
$--$&"
'
'
6
$
&
--''
1
&$6
 $
'

5$2
$
/$,$$"
 
$--$&
-1
$

2
$
$
$--$&

 '

1
 

5$2
A 
 "
 
$



 '

A A
1 
'
 '
!$
$
2
%$

 
5 !%
1
 
 -%
A 
'
 
$
1



    

         

AA
 9
1&&6
2,
 
!%
'
 
$
1
  

 

     
   
 

AA
89
$
 

      

 

 $&

&,'!
-
 
&$6
&$'
6
'
 
$1$'
!%"

> '
1
&$6
'
> '

2
1$%

 < 
&$
A''&
+ !
$
&
 
 '
--,

2
$ $&
$
$,
--,

 
! 
 $
'
6'
$%
1$
0

$
6 
'
 $
 
 '
--,
6$
$ $&
'
$ 
$ "
1$
0

$
$;
$
-&$
 $
-$'

 
 '
$
!
2,

%$,
&$6
$
&'> ' %
)
C7 '2'
)D:
6$
' $

 
! 
 $
 
$%
'
2,
-&$'!
-
1
/$&>$
$6$'
C7 '2'

:
6$
$;
'
'$'

-
 $
 
 '
--,
6$
$ $&
'
$ 
$
1  %
'
&'> ' %
)
C7 '2'
)9
7


2,
1$
0

'
1$ 
1
'
6'1
.',$
% 
1
 
-&$''11"
 
 '
--,
6$
$%'
2,
1$
0


2
$ $&
'
$ 

 
!$
 
&'> ' %
)
C7 '2'
)D:
'
"
 
$%
$
2
' $
%&,

 
! 
 $
 
$%
'
2,
-&$'!

 < 
&$6
!$'!
-&$'!
'
$'
'

.?
1
 
A
1
A''&
  "
 
 &

1

.?
1
A A
'
&$
1
 
 ''
1
 
$--$&
6 '

$
$

"[2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence.-(1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

(2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph.

(3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words.]"

9

-
 &

1
A A"
-&$'!
'
> '

$'
&,
$
$%
'
$
'
1%
1
%$'$&
1$ 
$
'
'
- '1'

$&&,
$
'
 $
 &
 $
' 
'

> '

2
-&$
06"
'
 
6'
$%"
1$
0

$
-&$
 $
 
 '
--,
'

$ $&
--,
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,


?
-$$
8
1
 
6'
$%"
'
$
2
-&$
2,
1$
0

$

"3. It is denied that the suit land stated in para No. 1 of the plaint was the ancestral coparcenary and joint Hindu Family property of the plaintiffs."  ($
A 
2&6
$
6!&,
 
1$

$&&,
 $
1$
0

$
6 
'
 $
 
 '
--,
6$
$ $&
$
 -$ $,
--,
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,"
6 $
'
$
2
- '1'

$&&,
'

$
$
2
-


$2
"
 
 '
%$'$&
1$ 
'
'
1%
$
2
-&$
2,
 
$--&&$ 1$
0

'
'
6'
$%"

6$

> '

-&$
 
' 
6'
6 '


6$
> '

-
 '
%$'$&
1$ 
 $
 
 '
--,
'

$ $&
$
 -$ $,
--,
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,



"
'
$
2
&
 $
 

9
&'> ' %
)"
'1

-&$
'
 
6'
$%"
$
2
$;
'
'$'


($
 &
1
-
0

$

4
-&$''11
$! 
 $

'1
 
&'> ' %
)
'
$;
'
'$'"
 
$&"
'
6 &

$!
 
$ 
1
 
 '
--,
$
$
&'
-
 
&$6
&$'
6
2,
$
= &&
B
1
 $
$
/'!
A 
'


  

      

  

   
?


 $
$
99"
6 
'
-$$
0

$
9"
 $
$
/'!
A 
$
&'
-
 
5 !%
1
',
A  '&
$
 
/E2&
-7
A 

& 
 $
&'> ' %
)
6 &

$!
 
$ 
1
 
--,
< 
$%
'
-


$

"26. There is abundant authority for this proposition. In Venkatapathi Raju v. Venkatanarasimha Raju, ILR (1937) Mad 1 at p. 7 : (AIR 1936 Privy Council 264 at p. 267) a member of a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law severed his connection with the family, relinquishing his interest therein and went away to another village wherein he settled permanently. After his departure he and his descendants had nothing to do with the joint family. The question arose in a litigation, started by the descendants of one of his brothers, whether the separation of that member had affected the status of the other members of the family.

Answering it in the negative, their Lordships of the Privy Council stated thus :- "It is settled rule that when the members of a family hold the family estate in defined shares, they cannot be held to be joint in estate. But no definement of shares need take place when, the separating member does not receive any share in the estate but renounces his interest therein. His renunciation merely extinguishes his interest in the estate, but does not affect the status of the remaining members quoad the family property and they continue to be coparceners as before. The only effect of renunciation is to reduce the number of the persons to whom shares would be allotted, if, and when, a division of the estate takes place."

(27) This principle is adopted by the Supreme Court in Rukhniabai v. Lakminarayan, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 335. Speaking for the Court, Subba Rao, J. observed :

"A member need not receive any share in the joint estate but may renounce his interest therein; his renunciation merely extinguishes his interest in the estate but does not affect the status of the remaining members vis-a-vis the family property"." 
0
 2"
6 
$
%%2
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,
&'> ' 
'
 $
 
1
 
5'
/'
=$%'&,"
 
 
$ 
1
--,
'
 
$
1


 
%%2
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,
6 &

$!
B "
 
-''
6 &
2
'11
'1
'
&'> ' %
)
$

$
$1
'
 $

- '1'

%%2
1
 
1$%'&,"
 
 
 $
1
 
-
&'> ' '!
'
 
$
1
 
-

6 %
 
 $
'
$1
6 &

2
$ $&
$
$,
--,


< 
/E2&
-7
A 
'
   !    

! !     "
?


8
A

$
&
$

It is obvious, however, that the son can assert this equal right with the father only when the grandfather's property has devolved upon his father and has become ancestral property in his hands. The property of the grandfather can normally vest in the father as ancestral property if and when the father inherits such property on the death of the grandfather or receives it by partition, made by the Grandfather himself during his lifetime. On both these occasions the grand father's property comes to the father by virtue of the latter's legal right as a son or descendant of the former and consequently it becomes ancestral property in his hands.

But when the father obtains the grandfather's property by way of gift, he receives it not because he is a son or has any legal right to such property but because his father chose to bestow a favour on him which he could have bestowed on any other person as well. The interest which he takes in such property must depend upon the will of the grantor. A good deal of confusion we think has arisen by not keeping this distinction in mind. To find out whether a property is or is not ancestral in the hands of a particular person, not merely the relationship between the original and the present holder but the mode of transmission also must be looked to; and the property can ordinarily be reckoned as ancestral only if the present holder has got it by virtue of his being a son or descendant of the original owner.

The Mitakshara is fairly clear on this point. It has placed the father's gifts under a separate category altogether and in more places than one has declared them exempt from partition.
8
06
;-'!
'6
$&&
 '"
 
&'> ' %
)
C7 '2'
)D:
$

2

< '
&'> ' %
)
&$&,
 6
 $
B'
'!

1
B $!6$$"
6 
6$
 
!$ 1$ 
1
-
0

$

4
-&$''11
$
1$ 
1
 
1$"
$
$1
 
 '
&$

 
7
1
8
;$$&

%$&$
'
1$ 
1
'

#$%$&
'!

$&&,
 '
'
 
)
 $
1%
 
6$


'
&!$&
'
$

 '
6'
 $
&$
"
 '

&$&,
 6
 $
''
1
B'
'!
6$


&'> '
'
 $
'
 
5'
/'
=$%'&,
--,
$ "
'
 '
)"

$
$1
 
&$


 
7
1
8
;$$&

%$&$
'
1$ 
1
 
1$
"
 
1$
0

$
$;
 
&$

 
2$'
1
<$1
)
1%
'
1$ "
  !
 
$%
$
2
1
$
&'> ' %
)"
2 
$

$&&,
'
'
<$1
)"
 
--,
'
 
$
1
1$
0

6 &

2
$ $&
$
$,
--,
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,
$ "











1$
0

6 &
$;
'
$2& &,
$
 
 

'
'
$ ! 
6 &

$
$,
2' '! 
'
 
$%
$
1$
0

$

%-&
&

 
$%
/
$
$2& 
-6

$1
 
$%
$
2
 
A 
2&6
%%'
$
%'$;
2,
 &;'!
 
&'> ' %
)
$
2,

$;'!
'
'$'
 
1$ 
 $
 
--,
$

&
-
1$
0

1%
'
1$ 
$ "
1$
0

$
$;
 
$%

 
2$'
1
<$1
)
C7 '2'
)D:
1%
'
1$ 



"
 
1''!
1
 
A 
2&6
 $
 
 '
--,
'
 
$
1
1$
0

6 &
2
$ $&
$
$,
--,
'
$'&,
6!

 
!$
$%''
1
1$
0

1
 
 '
--,
2'!
$ $&
--,
'
"
$
A'$
B
1
 '
A 
'
#          "

 
(
98
$
&
$


"Mere assertion in the plaint and admission thereof in the written statement would not clothe the Court to presume ancestral nature of the property. The ancestral nature of the property has to be proved in terms of excerpt, pedigree table and as per requirement of Volume 1, Chapter 9, Rules 5 and 6 of High Court Rules and Orders. As per para No.232 of Mullah's Law, the plaintiffs who have asserted that the property was ancestral in nature, have to prove that the same has devolved upon them from three generations, in essence, they are the fourth generation. The admission of the defendants would not change the legal position. There is no dispute with regard to aforesaid proposition."  ?
-$$

1
 
5 !%

2,
$
A'$
B
1
 '
A 
'

0
9
1

'&
       !  !   
 '

989"
'
$
2
$
 $


%
$%''
1
1$
'

 11'

'

&
 
--,

2
$ $&

 '%'&$&,"
'
$
2 
1
$
 
&$
$
2'!
$   

      

 

  "  
(
9"
'
6$
&
$

"It is settled law that the person, who has acquired the property by dint of his hard labour, can deal with the same in the manner he wants. Mere assertion in the plaint and admission thereof in the written statement would not clothe the nature and the character of the property as ancestral. There has to be a direct, cogent and positive evidence to show that the property at the hands of Tehal Singh was ancestral."

9
"
2
 
A 
2&6
6
6!
'
- %'!
 
 '
--,
$
$ $&
$
$,
--,
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,

 
2$'
1
$%''
1
1$
'
 
&'> ' %
)
C7 '2'
)9

 
'
'
-

 
 $
 
 '
--,
6$

$ $&
$
$,
--,
1
5'
/'
=$%'&,"
 
-
0

$

4
-&$''11
$

'! 

$&&!
 
$&


2
''$
2,
1$ 
$
1$
0

 '
1$ 
6$
$&'
$
 $
'%
$
'
6$
&,
1$
0

6 
 &
$
$'
 
-&$
1
1$ 
$
-
0

$

4
-&$''11
$

'! 

-&$
$
-
1$ 
'
7

'
1
 
$&

 '!
 
&'1 '%
1
1$
0




"
 
5 !%
$
 
-$
2,
2
 
A 
2&6
$

 $'$2&
$
$
&'$2&

2

$'
$
 
1''!
 
2,
 
&$
A 
2&6

' 
0
"

$
8
$

 $'$2&
< 
$%
$

$'
$
$&&
 
' 
$
 '
'
1$ 
1
 
$--&&$ 1$

 '%'&$&,"
1''!

' 
0



$

 $'$2&
$
$

$'
$
 
' 
$
$&
 '
'
1$ 
1
 
$--&&$ 1$


8
"
 
$--$&
'
$&&6
$
 
5 !%
$
 
-$
2,
2
 
A 
2&6
$

$'
$
 '
1'&
2,
-
0












$

-&$''11
$
'%'
6'


$



        

              
 !

"
  %
 $%$
        D  
-$;'!:$
√ F:0
D  
-$2&
√ F:0