SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 913

M.M.PUNCHHI, SUJATA V.MANOHAR
Surjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Harbans Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
AVADH BIHARI ROHTAGI, B.N.NAIK, J.C.NAGPAL, K.B.ROHTAGI, MANOJ SVARUP, MIRA AGRAWAL, R.C.MISHRA, SATISHVIG

JUDGMENT :- Here is an unfortunate dispute between members of a family, the head of which was one Janak Singh. It appears that Janak Singh had no son, but had a daughter, who on marriage had given birth to three sons, namely, Gurdial Singh, Jeevan Singh and Pritam Singh. Janak Singh appears to have adopted Gurdial Singh as a son. He had considerable house and landed property. And since property divides, the members of the family got to be litigating with each other. With all sincerity, and in putting an end to it, Janak Singh, Gurdial Singh, Jeevan Singh and Pritam Singh, executed a family settlement deed on 27-6-1930, which was registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Patiala. A broad feature of that settlement was that all four recognised each other as co-sharers of the properties of Janak Singh under the settlement and it was contemplated that on the death of Janak Singh, his fourth share would also devolve on the remaining three co-shares. Prima-facie, their aspiration embodied in paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof, disclose that alienation of property, during the life-time of Janak Singh, was prohibited without consent of others and the property was meant to be preserved from







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top