Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.K. GOSWAMI AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Teg Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Charan Singh and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 686 of 1976,
D/- 23-3-1977.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. P.P. Juneja, Adv. for Appellants: M/s. S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri, Advs., for Respondent No. 1.
Punjab Customs (Power to Contest) Act, 1920 - Section, 7 - Death - Claim to be potential reversioners - Appellants for possession certain properties including property which had gifted to appellant - Suit was decreed by trial Court on January that decree was confirmed in appeal by District Court and High Court - On June appellants filed special leave petition in this Court challenging High Court judgment - They raised inter alia new contention ground that in decreeing suit courts below had overlooked relevant provisions Punjab Customs Power to Contest Amendment Act virtue of which legality of gift made by in favor Devi could not be contested - On June this Court granted special leave to appellants limited to aforesaid Ground special leave petition – Court have heard an interesting argument from - Who appears on behalf of appellants as regards true construction and effect of Punjab Customs Power to Contest Act as amended in but court are of opinion that argument lacks basis and cannot therefore be accepted - Held, Court may with advantage be referred to on this point - Customary law of Punjab wife and daughters of holder of ancestral property could not sue to obtain declaration that alienation of ancestral property will not bind reversionary after death of alien or - But reversion who was entitled to challenge that alienation could obtain declaratory decree that alienation will not bind reversionary after ailerons death - It was by this Court that such declaratory decree had effect of restoring property alienated to estate of alien or and therefore all persons including wife and daughters of deceased were entitled to benefit of that restoration - Since property alienated had reverted to estate of alien or at point of his death widow and daughters who also became heirs along with sons Hindu Succession Act were entitled to obtain possession of ancestral property attempted to get over effect of this decision by invoking provisions Punjab Limitation Custom Act1 which provides that when person obtains decree declaring that an alienation of ancestral immovable property is not binding on him according to custom decree shall ensure for benefit of all persons entitled to impeach alienation - Counsel argues that since respondent was not entitled to impeach gift in favor on Devi having been adopted after date of gift decree obtained by appellants cannot ensure for his benefit - Short answer to this contention is that decree would inure for benefit of all persons who are entitled to share in property deceased as it existed at moment of his death - Since Mules property stood freed from encumbrance of gift at moment of his death respondent as adopted son would be entitled to possession of gifted property - Another facet of same question can be seen in Singh - Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held therein that though suit to contest customary law an alienation of immovable property may not lie after coming into force of Amending Act declaratory decree already obtained by reversion would continue to be operative as Amending Act does not render such decree nullity - Appeal dismissed
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, J.- One Mula executed a registered gift-deed in favour of appellant No. 13, Bhagwati Devi, on December 3, 1964. On April 29, 1965, appellants 1 to 12 claiming to be potential reversioners filed suit No. 143 of 1965 against the donor and the donee for a declaration that under the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 2 of 1920, the gift-deed was not binding on them. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on May 31, 1966 and that decree was confirmed in appeal on October 16, 1967.
2. In between, on July 10, 1966 Mula adopted the respondent. On March 11, 1970, appellant No. 13 executed in favour of appellants 1 to 12 a lease in respect of the property which was the subject-matter of the gift, Mula died on August 28, 1971.
3. On December 13, 1971 respondent filed the present suit against the appellants for possession of certain properties including the property which Mula had gifted to appellant No. 13. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on January 29, 1971 and that decree was confirmed in appeal by the District Court and the High Court.
4. On June 3, 1976 appellants filed a special leave petition in this Court challenging the High Court judgment. They raised, inter alia, a new contention (ground No. 8) that in decreeing the suit, the courts below had overlooked the relevant provisions of the Punjab Customs (Power to Contest) Amendment Act 12 of 1973, by virtue of which the legality of the gift the made by Mula in favour of Bhagwati Devi could not be contested. On June 11, 1976 this Court granted special leave to the appellants limited to the aforesaid Ground (B) of the special leave petition.
5. We have heard an interesting argument from Mr. Juneja, who appears on behalf of the appellants, as regards the true construction and effect of the Punjab Customs (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, as amended in 1973, but we are of the opinion that the argument lacks basis and cannot, therefore, be accepted. The contention, sought to be raised for the first time by the learned counsel, is founded on the assumption that by reason by the Amendment Act of 1973, the gift-deed executed by Mula cannot be challenged by the respondent. The assumption on which the argument is founded is fallacious, because the respondent does not seek by his plaint, as indeed he need not have sought, to challenge the gift-deed executed by Mula in favour of Bhagwati Devi. That gift was challenged by appellants 1 to 12 in Suit No. 143 of 1965, and they succeeded in obtaining a declaration in that suit that the gift was not binding on the reversioners. That decree became final, with the result that as on August 28, 1971, when Mula died, the property which he had sought to gift away to Bhagwati Devi, was free from the encumbrance of the purported gift. By the present suit, the respondent merely asks for possession of the property in respect of which Mula had executed the deed of gift. The basis on which he has asked for that relief is that upon the death of Mula in 1971, the gift ceased to be operative by reason of the decree passed in Suit No. 143 of 1965. It seems to us plaint that he has not and he need not have contested the validity of the gift-deed since that question was decided finally in the aforesaid suit.
6. Sec. 7 of the Punjab Customs (Power to Contest) Act, 1920 provided initially that no person shall contest my alienation of non-ancestral immovable property on the ground that such alienation is contrary to custom. This section was amended by Section 3 of the Punjab Customs (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 12 of 1973, as a result of which no challenge could be made to the alienation of any immovable property, whether ancestral or non-ancestral, on the ground that it is contrary to custom. It is, therefore, true that if it became necessary after the Amending act of 1973 to contest the gift executed by Mula in favour of Bhagwati Devi, Sec. 7 of the Act to 1920 would operate as a bar to such a contest. However, as we have stated earlier, it
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
