1. Suit for possession of a share in property gifted by a limited owner to her daughters, subsequently claimed by a daughter's husband via will. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 954
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Dalip Kaur (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ram Kishan (D) Thr. Lr(s). & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5806 OF 2008
Decided On : 27-09-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Where a widow entered into a compromise with a presumptive reversioner and was accepted as the absolute owner of a portion of the properties, and gave up her claim in the remaining properties, the presumptive reversioners who themselves ultimately became the reversioners would be estopped from challenging the transaction. The settlement could also be considered as a family arrangement binding on the parties.
Where a widow entered into a compromise with a presumptive reversioner and was accepted as the absolute owner of a portion of the properties, and gave up her claim in the remaining properties, the presumptive reversioners who themselves ultimately became the reversioners would be estopped from challenging the transaction. The settlement could also be considered as a family arrangement binding on the parties.
Subject
Property Law - Partition and Joint Ownership
Headnote
Property law – Hindu law – Mother alienating her property by registered gift deed among her three daughters in equal shares – Held, Gift deed more in the nature of family arrangement – Courts lean favourably towards family arrangement – All the three daughters getting possession of their respective shares of property and getting their names mutated – One daughter dying – Her husband claiming her share – Held the remaining daughters being a party and beneficiaries of the gift deed cannot challenge the same – High Court and trial court rightly decreeing the suit. (Para 8)
(1971) 1 SCC 837 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Respondent no.1 in this appeal, namely, Ram Kishan (now dead and represented through his legal heir) filed a suit for possession as the owner of the 1/3rd share of the suit property against the contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein). The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the suit came to be decreed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Suit has been rightly decreed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the property devolved to the father's heirs as reversioners upon the daughter's death or remained with the daughter's estate via the gift deed. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The gift by a limited owner to all legal representatives, accepted and mutated, constitutes a family arrangement intended to maintain harmony and avoid future disputes. (Para 8 )
4. Reversioners who consent to or benefit from an alienation by a limited heir are estopped from challenging the validity of such transaction. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the judgment decreeing the suit for possession of the one-third share is affirmed. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. What is the legal effect of a reversioner's consent to an alienation by a limited owner?
A reversioner, whether male or female, who consents to an alienation, including a gift, made by a widow or other limited heir without legal necessity is precluded from disputing the validity of that alienation, regardless of whether they received consideration for their consent. (Para 7 )
7. Are family arrangements involving the alienation of an estate binding on reversioners?
Yes, where a widow or limited heir enters into a family arrangement or compromise involving an alienation of the estate, any reversioner who was a party to and benefited from the transaction is precluded from questioning the alienation. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. How is a gift to all legal representatives by a limited owner viewed under customary law?
A gift by a limited owner to all legal representatives in equal shares, which is accepted and mutated in revenue records, is treated as a family arrangement to avoid future disputes and is permissible under prevailing customary law. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 551 of 1982.
The appellants herein are the original defendants. Respondent no.1 in this appeal, namely, Ram Kishan (now dead and represented through his legal heir) filed a suit for possession as the owner of the 1/3rd share of the suit property against the contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein). The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the suit came to be decreed by the High Court.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
Harnam Singh was the original owner of the property. He died on 12.11.1934, leaving behind his wife Prem Kaur and three daughters, namely, Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur. After the death of Harnam Singh in the year 1934, Prem Kaur succeeded to the property in question as per the prevailing custom in the area. She executed a gift deed on 19.09.1951 in favour of three daughters, namely, Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur to the extent of 1/3rd each. Basant Kaur, the first daughter of Harnam Singh and Prem Kaur expired on 25.03.1975, leaving behind her husband – Ram Kishan s/o Telu. Basant Kaur had executed a will in favour of her husband – Ram Kishan. Based on the said will, he filed a suit for possession of 1/3rd share in the property.
It is the case of the defendants that upon the death of their sister Basant Kaur, the suit property devolved on heirs of her father Harnam Singh; since they are the only heirs of their father, they are entitled to the property as reversioners.
3. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The only question to be decided in this appeal is, as to whether the trial Court and the High Court are justified in concluding that Basant Kaur was entitled to 1/3rd share in the property of Prem Kaur, and consequently, as to whether the plaintiff being the husband of Basant Kaur is entitled to the said 1/3rd share.
4. Indisputably, the suit property was gifted by Prem Kaur by executing a registered deed in favour of her three daughters, namely, Basant Kaur (wife of the contesting respondent) and Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur (defendant nos. 1 and 2) on 19.09.1951 in equal shares. The possession of the property was also delivered to them. Mutation no. 1555 was sanctioned on 26.6.1952 in their favour respectively. The gift deed, as well as, the consequent mutation are not questioned by anybody at any point of time.
5. The husband of Prem Kaur, viz. Harnam Singh, expired in the year 1934. The parties are Hindus. The properties are situated at Punjab. It may be noted at this point that though the Benaras school of Mitakshara law covers practically the whole of North India, Punjab is an exception, since here the Mitakshara law has been modified considerably by custom on certain points. The whole matter is viewed keeping in mind customary Hindu law prevailing in the state of Punjab during the relevant period of time.
6 Prem Kaur, being the mother of Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur, gifted the properties situated at Manauli, tehsil Kharar in favour of her three daughters. Prem Kaur had a limited estate in the property. Despite the same, the three daughters did not object to the alienation. On the contrary, they accepted the gift and got their names mutated in the revenue records.
7. Learned author Sir Dinshaw Mulla, while commenting in his book Hindu Law (22nd edition, §191) mentions that a reversioner, whether male or female, who consents to an alienation (including by way of gift) by a widow or other limited heir made without legal necessity, or to an invalid surrender, and transferees from him, are precluded from disputing the val
