Back
Supreme Court of India
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Rohit Chauhan
Versus
Surinder Singh & Others
Civil Appeal No. 5475 of 2013 (@ SLP (C) No. 22388 of 2011)
Decided on : 15-07-2013
Facts of the case
Plaintiff’s grandfather B had three sons G Z and R, In partition between B and his three sons G and R, G (plaintiff’s father arrayed as defendant No. 2) got ¼ share i.e. 72 kanals of land. In the said partition B also got 72 kanals of land and he bequeathed 1/4 of his share i.e., 18 Kanals to each of his three sons and kept with himself 18 Kanals. After the death of B, G inherited 1/3 share i.e., 6 Kanals and in this way plaintiff’s father G got 96 Kanals of land. G during his lifetime also acquired 8 Kanals of land from the income of the properties which he got in partition amongst his father and brothers. At the time of partition G was unmarried. But later on, G was married to defendant no. 7, and from the wedlock the plaintiff as also defendant no. 6 were born. Plaintiff was born on 25th of March, 1982. Plaintiff alleged that his father G executed two separate sale deeds on 19th of May, 2000 selling 8 Kanals of land acquired from joint family funds to defendant nos. 3 to 5. It is further allegation of the plaintiff that his father illegally gifted 96 Kanals of land in favour of defendant no. 1, the son of his real brother Z by way of release deed dated 28th of May, 2004. The plaintiff filed civil suit and assailed the execution of both the sale deeds and the release deed, alleging that property received by his father G is ancestral property and, therefore, alienation of the same by him is null and void. All the defendants contested the suit. Their common defence is that the land in question became the self acquired property of G after partition and, therefore, he was competent to transfer the property in the manner he desired. The said G being pleased by the services of the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 executed the release deed and the sale deeds.
The trial Court accepted the plaintiffs case and held that the property which G got by virtue of the partition decree amongst his father and brothers was although separate property qua other relations but it attained the characteristics of coparcenary property after the plaintiff was born, and decreed the plaintiff’s suit. In appeal the first appellate Court held that the property which G got on partition "lost the character of coparcenary property and became the self acquired property of G. The lower appellate court further held that once the property is held to be self acquired property of G, he had every right to deal with the same in any manner he liked. Accordingly, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff, aggrieved by the same, preferred second appeal and the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine. Hence this appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held as above, set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and High Court and resorted that of the trial Court.
Findings
The property in the hands of G allotted to him in partition was a separate property till the birth of the plaintiff and, therefore, after his birth G could have alienated the property only as Karta for legal necessity. G had not executed the sale deeds and release deed as Karta for any legal necessity. Hence, the sale deeds and the release deed executed by G to the extent of entire coparcenary property are illegal, null and void.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Coparcenary property refers to property that includes ancestral property, and a coparcener is someone who shares equally in inheritance from a common ancestor. It is a narrower concept than the entire joint Hindu family. A coparcener has an undivided interest that can enlarge or diminish over time due to births or deaths in the family (!) .
A coparcener does not have a fixed share but an interest that changes with family events. Property remains separate if it is in the hands of a single person after partition, but if a son is subsequently born, the property becomes coparcenary, and the son acquires an interest in it (!) .
A father acting as Karta can transfer ancestral property only for legal necessity. Alienation without such necessity is invalid (!) .
When a person receives property from ancestors through survivorship, it remains coparcenary; however, property obtained through will, consent, or partition may lose its coparcenary character and become self-acquired property (!) (!) .
The character of property as ancestral or self-acquired can change based on how it was acquired and whether a subsequent birth of a coparcener (e.g., a son) occurs. Property allocated to a sole surviving coparcener remains separate until a son is born, after which it becomes coparcenary property (!) (!) .
In the specific case discussed, property received by the father on partition was initially separate but gained characteristics of coparcenary property after the birth of the plaintiff. Therefore, alienations made by the father after the plaintiff's birth, without legal necessity, were invalid (!) (!) (!) .
Conversely, if property was acquired through partition and was not survivorship property, it could be considered self-acquired, giving the owner full rights to deal with it as they wish, including alienation, without restrictions. This was the basis for the appellate courts' decisions in the case (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the legal character of property—whether coparcenary or self-acquired—is crucial in determining the validity of alienations. Alienations made without legal necessity in coparcenary property are null and void, whereas self-acquired property can be freely dealt with by the owner (!) .
The Supreme Court ultimately restored the trial court's decision, ruling that the property in question was coparcenary at the time of alienation, and the alienations made by the father without legal necessity were invalid. The appellate courts' conclusions that the property had become self-acquired and could be freely alienated were overturned (!) .
These points summarize the legal principles and the facts of the case as discussed in the document.
Judgment :-
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
Sole plaintiff Rohit Chauhan is the appellant before us. His grandfather Budhu had three sons, namely, Gulab Singh, Zile Singh and one Ram Kumar. Gulab Singh, father of the plaintiff, has been arrayed as defendant no. 2, whereas son of Zile Singh i.e. Surinder Singh figures as defendant no. 1 in the suit. In partition between Budhu and his three sons, defendant no. 2 got 1/4 share i.e., 72 Kanals of land. In the said partition Budhu also got 72 Kanals of land and he bequeathed 1/4 of his share i.e., 18 Kanals to each of his three sons and kept with himself 18 Kanals. After the death of Budhu, defendant no. 2 inherited 1/3 share i.e., 6 Kanals and in this way plaintiff’s father Gulab Singh, defendant no. 2,got 96 Kanals of land. Defendant No.2 during his lifetime also acquired 8 Kanals of land from the income of the properties which he got in partition amongst his father and brothers. At the time of partition defendant no. 2 was unmarried. But later on, Gulab Singh was married to defendant no. 7, Rajesh Rani and from the wedlock the plaintiff as also defendant no. 6 were born. Plaintiff was born on 25th of March, 1982.
Plaintiff alleged that his father defendant no. 2 executed two separate sale deeds on 19th of May, 2000 selling 8 Kanals of land acquired from joint family funds to defendant nos. 3 to 5. It is further allegation of the plaintiff that his father illegally gifted 96 Kanals of land in favour of defendant no. 1 Surinder Singh, the son of his real brother Zile Singh by way of release deed dated 28th of May, 2004. On the basis of the release deed and the sale deeds, the defendants claiming interest therein got their names mutated and attested in the revenue records. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property received by his father is ancestral property and, therefore, alienation of the same by him is null and void. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff prayed for declaration that the release deed, sale deeds and the mutation entries made on that basis are illegal, null and void and not binding on him, Varsha (defendant no. 6) and Rajesh Rani (defendant no. 7).
Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and, according to him, the plaintiff, his mother Rajesh Rani and minor sister Varsha were living separately from defendant No. 2 and there was no good relation between them. They were not even on talking terms. According to defendant no. 1, he and his family members were rendering service and giving honour to defendant no. 2 and he was residing with them as their family member. Defendant no. 1 further averred that out of love, affection and service rendered by him, defendant no. 2 was pleased and, as such, he executed a release deed in his favour and on that basis mutation entries were made. It is the plea of defendant no.1 that the land in question became the self acquired property of defendant no. 2 after partition and, therefore, he was competent to transfer the property in the manner he desired. Defendant no. 1 further alleged that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant nos. 3 to 5 is legal and valid. Defendant no. 2 supported the case of defendant no. 1 and adopted the written statement filed by him. Defendant nos. 3 to 5 filed their separate written statements and supported the plea of defendant no. 1 and averred that the sale deeds and the release deed were validly executed. On the basis of the aforesaid pleading of the parties various issues have been framed including the following issues:
“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration to the effect that impugned release deed dt.28.5.2004 and mutation no.3365 entered and attested in lieu of impugned release deed and further two sale deeds dt.19.5.2000 bearing no.272/1 and 273/1 and mutation no.3110 and 3106 entered and attested on the basis of impugned two sale deeds and further revenue entries are wrong, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and d
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
