Back
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
KAPUR, J.
Indar Singh
Versus
Gulzara Singh
Second Appeal No. 32 of 1948
Decided On : 27-07-1950
CUSTOM - ALIENATION - ANCESTRAL PROPERTY - GIFT TO SONS - WHETHER ANCESTRAL - LAND ACQUIRED OTHERWISE THAN BY DESCENT OR BY REASON MERELY OF CONNECTION WITH COMMON ANCESTOR - WHETHER ANCESTRAL.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a collateral, challenged the sale of ancestral property by his uncles. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the land was non-ancestral. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who held that part of the land was ancestral and part was non-ancestral. Both parties appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the land gifted to the sons by their grandfather was non-ancestral, as it did not come to them by inheritance or by reason merely of their connection with the common ancestor. The Court also held that the land acquired by the plaintiff's uncles through preemption was not ancestral, as they had acquired it from a collateral, not from a lineal descendant. The Court further held that the remaining land was so intermingled with ancestral and non-ancestral land that it was impossible to determine which portion was ancestral and which was not.
Issues: Whether the land gifted to the sons by their grandfather was ancestral.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the land gifted to the sons by their grandfather was non-ancestral, as it did not come to them by inheritance or by reason merely of their connection with the common ancestor. The Court also held that the land acquired by the plaintiff's uncles through preemption was not ancestral, as they had acquired it from a collateral, not from a lineal descendant. The Court further held that the remaining land was so intermingled with ancestral and non-ancestral land that it was impossible to determine which portion was ancestral and which was not.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals filed by the vendees and dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiff, the collateral. As a result, all the suits were dismissed.
On 29-12-1933 Dhanna Singh sold half share of the whole area in dispute to Dewa Singh, Sohna and others for a sum of Rs. 4,900. The vendees in their turn resold the property to one Ashar Singh and on 24-8-1934 Major Singh pre-empted the sale and obtained this half share by means of a pre-emption decree. In order to pay off the pre-emption money Major Singh sold his half share to Bhag Singh. He also sold a portion of the property that he obtained by preemption to Chanan Singh and another portion to Indar Singh.
2. Gulzara Singh, a collateral who claims to be a minor, brought three suits. Suit No. 528 was to challenge the sale in favour of Indar Singh. Suit No. 529 was to challenge the sale in favour of Chanan Singh. Suit No. 531 was to challenge the sale in favour of Bhag Singh. In all these suits the vendees pleaded that the land was not ancestral. In Suits Nos. 528 and 529 the plaint was allowed to be amended and instead of challenging the sale by Major Singh to Chanan Singh and Indar Singh the original sale of Dhanna Singh of 29-12-1933 was challenged by Gulzara Singh. A large number of pleas were raised by the defendants and an equally large number of issues were stated by the learned trial Judge, but he found that the whole of the land sold was non-ancestral as also the half house which was comprised in Suit No. 528 and, therefore, he dismissed the suit. Appeals against these decrees were taken to the learned District Judge, who by his judgment dated 8-7-1948 has held (1) that half the house was rightly held to be non-ancestral (2) he divided the land into four categories (a) 24 fields mentioned on pages 120 and 121 in the settlement records of 1852 which were recorded to be the property of Kahna son of Nanak, (b) 15 fields recorded in that settlement in the name of third parties, (c) 21 fields entered at p. 124 of the settlement record of 1852 stood in the name of Mehru, (d) shamilat land. There did not seem to be any dispute with regard to category (b). With regard to (a) he held that the land had been proved to be ancestral, and (c) he held to be non-ancestral, and the shamilat would follow the khewat land. Against these three judgments and decrees these appeals have been filed, three by the vendees and three by Gulzara Singh, and this judgment will dispose of all the six appeals. With regard to - category No. (c), i. e., land which had come from Mohru, it appears that Khazan Singh, the grand-father gifted this portion in the proportion of one-third to Dewa Singh and the rest to the other sons. Hazara Singh, who was the son of Attar Singh, sold his one-third share to Hira Singh and Wazir Singh. He held the whole of this land to be non-ancestral on the ground that the property had not come by inheritance to the sons of Khazan Singh and had come otherwise than by descent or by reason merely of their connexion with the common ancestor.
3.Mr. Rup Chand Chaudhri for Gulzara Singh submits that this land should have been held to be ancestral because the gift was to the sons who would otherwise have inherited it. I am unable to agree with this submission. In Rattigans Digest of Customary Law, a book of undoubted authority, it is stated that the rule is now firmly established that land ceases to be ancestral if it comes into the hands of an owner, otherwise than by descent, or by reason merely of his connexion with the common ancestor (see p. 268), and in two Division Bench judgments of the Lahore High Court the same view has been expressed: see Saif-ul-Rahman v. Muhammad Ali Khan, 9 Lah. 95 at p. 102 : (a.i.r. (15) 1928 Lah. 285) and Jagtar Singh v. Raghbir Singh, 1
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
