IMPORTANT POINT
When sale of ancestral property was challenged by one of the legal heirs and sale was set aside, property alienated reverted back to estate of alienor at the point of his death and all persons who would but for the alienation will be entitled to inherit the same.

Headnote:HINDU LAW—Ancestral property—Reversionary rights of heirs—Suit for declaration by respondent-plaintiffs that they were owner to an extent of share in land of their common ancestor—Common ancestor had sold his land and ancestor of present appellants had challenged that sale as without consideration and legal necessity and void and had no effect on reversionary rights—Suit was decreed upto High Court—In Supreme Court a compromise was arrived where in alienee admitted that land was ancestral and relinquished his right in same after accepting a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from plaintiff of that suit—Present suit was contested on plea that ancestor of appellant became owner of suit land and had incurred huge expenses for making land fertile and constructed rooms—Trial Court had dismissed the suit—Appeal filed by respondents was allowed—High Court dismissed second appeal—Appeal—Property alienated reverted to estate of alienator at point of his death and all persons who would but for the alienation will be entitled to inherit the same—While recording compromise in earlier suit, rights of plaintiffs were kept intact by dismissing appeal of alienee—Money claimed to have been spent by ancestor of appellant would be a matter of adjustment when actual allotment is made.
       Held : Rival contentions need careful consideration. It would be appropriate at this stage to take note of this Court’s judgment in Giani’s Ram v. Ramjilal (1969 (1) SCC 813). It was inter alia held as follows:-
       “The Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920, was enacted to restrict the rights exercisable by members of the family to contest alienations made by a holder of ancestral property. By virtue of Section 6 of the Act no person is entitled to contest an alienation of ancestral immovable property unless he is descended in the male line from the great-great grandfather of the alioner. Under the customary law in force in the Punjab a declaratory decree obtained by the reversionary heir in an action to set aside the alienation of ancestral property enured in favour of all persons who ultimately took the estate on the death of the alienor for the object of a declaratory suit filed by a reversionary heir impeaching an alienation of ancestral estate was to remove a common apprehended injury, in the interest of the reversioners. The decree did not make the alienation a nullity – it removed the obstacle to the right of the reversioner entitled to succeed when the succession opened.”
       It was also held that effect of such a declaratory decree is merely to declarate that by the sale interest conveyed in favour of the alienee was to ensure during the life time of the alienor. The inevitable conclusion is that the property alienated reverted to the estate of the alienor at the point of his death and all persons who would but for the alienation will be entitled to inherit the same. A bare perusal of the order of this Court while recording the compromise shows that the rights of the plaintiffs was kept in tact by dismissing the appeal of Bishan Singh against them. If Joginder Singh had spent any money as claimed, that is a matter of adjustment when the actual allotment is made.(Paras 9 to 12)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’).

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

One Ajit Singh was a common ancestor of the appellants and the respondents. The respondents as plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners to the extent of 17/24 share in the 107 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land, out of 151 Kanals 5 Marlas of land in dispute which had been allotted to their common ancestor Ajit Singh at the time of consolidation. Ajit Singh was a man of full vices, a spend-thrift person and had sold his land to one Bishan Singh without consideration and legal necessity. Joginder Singh, ancestor of the present appellants 1 to 5 and 7 had filed a suit for declaration that said sale was without consideration and legal necessity and as such void and had no effect on the reversionary rights. The said suit was decreed up to the High Court. Before this Court a compromise was arrived at between Joginder Singh and Bishan Singh in which the latter admitted that the land was ancestral property and the sale was ineffective. He, therefore, relinquished his right in the same after accepting a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from Joginder Singh, the original defendant No.1. With a mala fide intent Joginder Singh initially got the mutation sanctioned in his name in relation to the entire land and, thereafter had got a portion thereof mutated in favour of his son, Harpal Singh (defendant No.2) and his wife Smt. Harjinderjit Kaur (defendant No.3). Appellant No.2 Manraj Singh is the son of Harpal Singh. These entries, according to the plaintiffs were incorrect and had no effect on their rights as they had acquired 17/24 share in the suit land as reversioners on the death of Ajit Singh on 3.9.1986. The decree of this Court was not binding on them as they were not parties to the compromise. The plaintiffs had requested the defendants to admit their claim, but to no effect. Therefore, the suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession was filed. The suit was contested by the defendants who admitted the relationship inter se, as also the fact that the land in question was allotted at the time of consolidation in lieu of the land which was ancestral in the hands of Ajit Singh. It was also admitted that Ajit Singh had sold the land without legal necessity and consideration and that defendant No.1 Joginder Singh had filed suit for declaration which was decreed up to the High Court, and a compromise had been affected by Joginder Singh with Bishan Singh. They also admitted that after the compromise possession was taken by Joginder Singh. However, it was submitted that the High Court had observed that the sale in favour of Bishan Singh was void and would not affect the revisionary rights of Joginder Singh after the death of Ajit Singh. Before this Court only Joginder Singh was a party and it was he, who had entered into compromise with Bishan Singh, in pursuance whereof a decree was passed. On the basis of this decree Joginder Singh claimed that he had become owner of the suit land. Joginder Singh had also incurred huge expenses for making the land fertile and had installed electricity tubewell, electric motor of 7.5 horse power and also constructed 4/5 rooms for the storage of seed, fertilizer etc. He also claimed to have grown orchard in an area of four acres and planted 600/700 eucalyptus trees. Other defendants 2 to 6 claimed to have become owners by way of decree of a Court and mutual exchanges. It was stated that in view of the decision in favour of Joginder Singh in the earlier suit, the subsequent suit was not maintainable and the decision of this Court dated 22.3.1966 operated as res judicata. It was also submitted that plaintiffs were estopped from filing suit by their own acts and cond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 392

IMPORTANT POINTWhen sale of ancestral property was challenged by one of the legal heirs and sale was set aside, property alienated reverted back to estate of alienor at the point of his death and all persons who would but for the alienation will be entitled to inherit the same.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
When sale of ancestral property was challenged by one of the legal heirs and sale was set aside, property alienated reverted back to estate of alienor at the point of his death and all persons who would but for the alienation will be entitled to inherit the same.