Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Baldev Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
This appeal is against the concurrent findings of the courts below. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial court.
2. Plaintiff No.1 - Baldev Singh (respondent N: 1 herein — since deceased & so, represented by his LRs) is the son of initially impleaded sole defendant Harkesh. Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 i.e. Ashok Kumar and Netrar Pal (respondent N: 2 & 3 herein) are the sons of Baldev Singh i.e. grandsons of the said defendant-Harkesh. Present appellants are pendente lite vendee of the suit property from defendant Harkesh. They were substituted as such in place of defendant before first appellate court.
3.1. As per plaintiffs, parties formed a joint Hindu family, of which the defendant was the Karta. Land measuring 61 kanal 16 marla [2/3 share of the total land] situated in Village Daula, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, is the ancestral property of plaintiffs; whereas, defendant is recorded as owner to the extent of 1/3 share i.e. 31 kanal 6 marla [‘suit land’] in the total land as Karta of the family and so, the same is inalienable.. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant wanted to se
The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the ancestral property through family settlement, and their claims were barred by the principle of estoppel due to prior admissions in....
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 presumption of joint family property necessitates proof of individual ownership; without such proof, a child has a right to claim share in ancestral property.
The trial Court must examine the plaint's averments to determine if a cause of action exists, rather than rejecting it based solely on the defendant's claims.
The court affirmed that the suit property was separate property inherited by the father, not ancestral, allowing its legal sale to the respondent.
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.
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
