Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 4527
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mahesh Grover, J.
Smt. Gurmail Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jaswant Kaur and others - Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 783 of 1989.
Decided On : 22 December, 2006
For the Appellant (in both the appeals) :Mr. R.K. Battas, Advocate.
For the Respondents (in both the appeals):Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the mental capacity of an individual under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, and its impact on property rights and transactions.
Headnote:
Lunacy - Property Dispute - Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 - Section 3(5) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, Section 3(5) - The court analyzed the evidence to determine the mental capacity of the deceased and the validity of the collusive decree and Will. The judgment discussed the definition of lunatic under Section 3(5) of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 and the evidence of the deceased's unsound mind. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the deceased's mental state and its impact on the validity of the collusive decree and Will.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought declaration as the joint owner of a property and possession of the same. The dispute arose from the ownership of the property after the death of Piara Singh, who was alleged to be of unsound mind. The plaintiff's suit was decreed by the trial court, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Piara Singh was of unsound mind and incapable of understanding the consequences of his actions, including the collusive decree and the Will. The court held the collusive decree null and void, and the Will invalid. The court also determined the devolution of Piara Singh's share of the property to the successors.
Issues: The issues included the mental capacity of Piara Singh, the validity of the collusive decree and Will, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence of Piara Singh's unsound mind, the definition of lunatic under the Indian Lunacy Act, and the suspicious nature of the collusive decree and Will. The court also considered the pleadings and participation of the parties in the proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, setting aside the judgment of the appellate court and granting the plaintiff-appellants a decree of declaration in terms of the trial court's judgment. The property was devolved upon the successors in equal shares.
Mahesh Grover, J. - This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 1130 of 1989 as well.
2. The plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the first appellate court) dated 31.1.1989 by which the judgment of the learned trial court dated 22.12.1984 was reversed resulting in the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.
3. It would be necessary to advert to the pedigree table depicting the relationship of the parties to the dispute :
See Pedigree Table Below
4. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that she is the joint owner of the suit property being 1/3rd share in the land of Piara Singh whose individual share was 1/3rd in the entire land measuring 467 Bighas 5 Biswas situated in village Dhanaura. It was prayed that the plaintiff-appellant was also entitled to possession of the suit property.
5. Piara Singh whose estate is in dispute was recorded to be the owner in possession of 1/3rd share of the agricultural land measuring 467 Bighas 5 Biswas which was a joint khewat with the plaintiff-appellant and respondents No. 1 Smt. Jaswant Kaur and respondent No. 5 Smt. Surinder Kaur (who is appellant in RSA No. 1130 of 1989). The land was stated to be ancestral as it was inherited by Piara Singh from his father. Piara Singh was a bachelor and died issueless and was a lunatic from his childhood. Being of unsound mind he was incapable of managing his affairs and was mentally incapable of giving any statement or executing any document. The fact of his being of unsound mind was established in the court proceedings in which Ram Kishan alias Harcharan Singh, father of respondent No. 1, was also a party. In the proceedings of the court on 13.5.1964 this fact was duly recorded. Besides, in case No. 5 of 23.4.1976 under the provisions of Lunacy Act the Additional District Judge, Patiala after putting detailed questions to Piara Singh held him to be lunatic and incapable of understanding anything vide his order dated 5.6.1978.
6. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant and respondent No. 5 Surinder Kaur (appellant in RSA No. 1130 of 1989) being the daughters of Bhag Singh and respondent No. 1 being the daughter of Ram Kishan were entitled to succeed in equal shares to the land of Piara Singh and accordingly they were entitled to a decree for joint possession of the 1/3rd share each of Piara Singh who died issueless. Smt. Jaswant Kaur, respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 585 of 17.10.1973 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Nabha against Piara Singh and obtained a collusive decree dated 12.4.1974. It was alleged therein that she was owner in possession of 1/3rd share of his total agricultural land measuring 66 Bighas 2 Biswas which now forms a part of the suit land. In the said suit Piara Singh admitted the claim of respondent No. 1 Jaswant Kaur even though he was of unsound mind and incapable of understanding import of such a statement. On the basis of the said decree the land was transferred to respondent No. 1. It was pleaded that the decree aforesaid had been obtained by fraud and the same is not binding and is liable to be set aside. The aforesaid decree came to light when the mutation was sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Asstt. Collector Ist Grade vide his orders dated 30.7.1976. Jaswant Kaur also claimed to be in possession of a Will dated 9.4.1976 in her favour executed by Piara Singh. The said Will was also challenged on the ground that Piara Singh was incapable of executing any document much less a Will as he was of insane mind. The whole exercise undertaken by respondent No. 1 in the shape of a collusive decree and Will was in order to usurp the land of Piara Singh.
7. The pleadings aforesaid by the appellant in her suit were contested by respondent No. 1 Jaswant Kaur and respondents No. 2 to 4 (arrayed as defendants No. 3 to 5 in the suit). The respondents plead
