2019 Supreme(SC) 703

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Arshnoor Singh – Appellant
Versus
Harpal Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5124 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6788 of 2019)
Decided on : 01-07-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Succession opening before commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is governed by Mitakshara law, even after commencement of the Act.
Karta cannot sale a property without a legal necessity or for benefit of the state and the onus to prove the same lies on the alienee.
No one can pass a better title than he has.

Headnote:

(a) Hindu law - Inheritance - Succession opening before commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Governed by Mitakshara law - Property inherited by a male Hindu from his paternal male ancestor shall be coparcenary property in his hands vis-à-vis his male descendants upto three degrees below him - Nature of property will remain as coparcenary property even after commencement of the Act, 1956 - Instantly Succession opened in 1951 on death of Lal Singh - Property inherited by his son Inder Singh was coparcenary in nature - Despite partion of the property by Inder Singh amongst his sons the property would remain as coparcenary property qua their male descendants upto three degrees below them - Consequently the property allotted to Dharam Singh in partition continued to remain coparcenary property qua the Appellant. (Para 7)

       (2018) 7 SCC 646; (1987) 1 SCC 204; AIR 1967 SC 1153 - Relied upon

       (2016) 4 SCC 68 - Distinguished

       (b) Hindu law - Karta cannot sale a property without a legal necessity or for benefit of the state - Onus to prove the same lies on the alienee - Instantly sale deeds without any monetary transaction held to be null and void. (Para 8, 11)

       (c) Property law - The sale deed on being declared null and void the vendee has no title on the property - She could not sale it further to anybody because no one can pass a better title than he has - Doctrine of lis pendens applies. (Para 9)

       (2010) 14 SCC 370 - Relied upon

       (d) Administration of justice - Locus - Plaintiff/Appellant a male coparcener in the suit property - Vitally affected by purported sale of the suit property by his father Dharam Singh - Held, had the locus to file suit for a declaration that the suit property being coparcenary property, could not have been sold by his father without legal necessity, or for the benefit of the estate. (Para 10)

       Facts of the case:

       Lal Singh was the owner of large tracts of agricultural land in Village Khangarh, District Ferozepur, Punjab. Lal Singh passed away in 1951, and his entire property was inherited by his only son Inder Singh. In 1964, Inder Singh during his lifetime, effected a partition of the entire property between his three sons viz. Gurcharan Singh, Dharam Singh, and Swaran Singh in equal shares.

       Thereafter, the three sons transferred one-fourth share in the entire property back to their father Inder Singh for his sustenance. As a consequence, Inder Singh and his three sons held one-fourth share each in the property.

       Inder Singh expired on 15.04.1970, and his one-fourth share was inherited by his heirs i.e. his widow, three sons, and his daughter.

       Dharam Singh had only one son viz. Arshnoor Singh -the Appellant herein. The Appellant was born on 22.08.1985 to Dharam Singh through his 1st wife.

       Dharam Singh purportedly sold the entire suit property to Respondent No. 1 viz. Harpal Kaur vide two registered Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 for an ostensible sale consideration of Rs. 4,87,500/- but actually without any monetary transaction.

       Subsequently Dharam Singh got married to Respondent No. 1.

       The Appellant became a major on 22.08.2003.

       On 23.11.2004, the Appellant filed a Suit for Declaration against his father Dharam Singh as Defendant No. 1, and Harpal Kaur as Defendant No. 2 (Respondent No. 1 herein) for a declaration that the suit property was coparcenary property, and hence the two Sale executed by his father Dharam Singh in favour of Respondent No. 1 herein were illegal, null and void. The Appellant further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining Respondent No. 1 from further alienating, transferring, or creating a charge on the suit property.

       During the pendency of the Suit, Respondent No. 1 purportedly sold the suit property jointly to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 viz. Kulwant Singh and Jung Bahadur vide a Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007.

       Respondent No. 1 filed an Application to Implead Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as co-defendants in the Suit.

       The Suit was decreed in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff.

       Respondent No. 1 along with the subsequent purchasers - Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed a common Civil Appeal.

       The appeal was dismissed.

       During the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal before the High Court, Dharam Singh expired on 05.01.2017.

       The High Court allowed the RSA filed by the Respondents, and set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below.

       Finding of the Court:

       The suit property was a coparcenary property.

       Result: Appeal allowed.