Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ
Ghondul Sahu, died – Appellant
Versus
Bisan Sahu S/o Shri Ghondul Sahu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants' claims of self-acquisition (Para 4) |
| 2. trial court's findings (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. ancestral property rights (Para 14) |
| 4. appeal outcome (Para 15) |
Judgment :
Challenge in this appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure is to the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gariyaband in Civil Suit No.26A/2015 whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the trial court.)
03. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 5 are members of the same family. Name of defendant No.1 has been recorded as owner of the ancestral property which is in fact the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1, 2 & 5 and as such, they all have equal 1/4 share in the said property. However, on the influence of defendants No. 2 & 5, father of the plaintiff i.e. defendant No.1 would not take care of him and even after marriage, he was separated from the family members and hence he started living separately and was maintaining his family somehow. In the year 20
The court affirmed that ancestral property rights are inherent to all coparceners, and sales executed without consent are invalid.
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
The court ruled that property is non-ancestral when not inherited from a common male ancestor, upholding legal validity of voluntary sales for consideration made by owner.
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging ancestral or joint property, and without evidence to support the claim, the Courts may reject the suit.
The karta of a Hindu Joint Family can validly alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, binding all family members.
Property inherited post-partition is categorized as separate property under Hindu law, thus allowing the vendor exclusive rights to sell without objections from the objectors.
A natural guardian cannot sell a minor's property without prior court approval, and any such sale is voidable at the minor's instance, reinforcing the protection of minors' rights in property matters....
Property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act is treated as separate property, affirming a vendor's absolute right to sell without objections from family members.
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
