Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Indraj - Appellant
Versus
Niranjan and Others - Respondents
RSA No. 175 of 1992
Decided On : 12-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jagdish Manchanda
For the Respondent: Parit Aggarwal

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.

Headnote:(A) Property Law - Agricultural Land - The court analyzed whether the suit property was ancestral or non-ancestral as per customary law. The First Appellate Court dismissed the suit based on the determination that the property was non-ancestral, finding the sale deed valid as executed for consideration and legal necessity. (Paras 7, 16)

(B) Customary Law - Alienation and Succession - It was established that a male proprietor has full power to alienate ancestral property; the appeal's central issue was whether the property could be deemed ancestral. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ancestral rights over agricultural land sold under a sale deed, asserting that it lacked legal necessity and was against customary law, which prohibits such sales without consideration. (Paras 4.1, 4.2)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the property to be non-ancestral, ruling that the sale deed was executed for legal necessity, and the plaintiff's claim was denied due to lack of evidential support for ancestral nature. (Paras 15, 17)

Issues: The primary issue was determining the nature of the suit property as ancestral under customary law, further considering the necessity for the sale. (Paras 16, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court adhered to the principle that property should be treated as non-ancestral if it hasn't devolved from a common male ancestor and should be proven by cogent evidence. The plaintiff was found to lack standing to assail the sale deed. (Paras 20, 21)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. Suit for declaration regarding property in dispute filed by plaintiff Indraj (appellant herein) was partly decreed by Ld. trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.09.1990. Both the parties went in appeal. Plaintiff filed appeal claiming that entire suit was liable to be decreed; whereas defendant No.1-Niranjan (contesting respondent herein) filed the appeal seeking dismissal of the suit in toto. Both these appeals were heard together. Learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.09.1991 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff; whereas, appeal filed by the defendant was accepted and consequently, the suit was dismissed in toto.

2. Against the aforesaid dismissal of his suit, the plaintiff has now approached this court by filing the present Regular Second Appeal.

3. In order to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

4.1 Defendant No.4 - Nanwa son of Bhule was recorded to be owner of the suit land measuring 29 kanal 18 marla, situated in Village Alduka, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurugram. He sold the said land to defendant No.1-Niranjan by virtue of a sale deed dated 05.06.1984 for consideration of ₹49,500/-. Plaintiff and proforma defendant Nos 2 & 3 are the sons of vendor Nanwa.

4.2 Plaintiff assailed the abovesaid sale deed dated 05.06.1984 contending that it was not binding on his reversionary rights and that of defendant Nos. 2 & 3, as the suit property was ancestral in nature in the hands of defendant No.4 qua the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 & 3. According to him, parties are governed by agricultural custom of Punjab & Haryana and District Gurugram in the matters of alienation and succession, according to which, a male proprietor cannot alienate his ancestral agricultural land without consideration and legal necessity. It was further the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 did not have any legal necessity so as to sell the suit property and that sale in question was without consideration and also opposed to the custom governing the parties. He prayed for necessary declaration in this regard.

5.1 Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 i.e., brothers and father of plaintiff admitted his claim.

5.2 Suit had been contested by defendant No.1, who in his written statement denied the ancestral nature of the suit property in the hands of his vendor Nanwa. He further alleged that plaintiff along with his brother Deep Chand and sister had earlier filed a suit seeking pre-emption of the sale in question, which has already been dismissed and as such, present suit was not maintainable, as plaintiff is estopped from filing the same. Defendant No.1 further denied that parties are governed by any agricultural custom as claimed by the plaintiff or that defendant No.1 sold the suit land without any necessity or without any consideration. As per defendant No. 1, the vendor-defendant No.1 owed debts to several persons, bank and other organizations and required money for the construction of his house and personal necessity for the marriage of his daughter and sons and that he (vendee-defendant No.1) had made necessary enquiries before the purchasing the suit land and thus, he is the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. With this stand and controverting all other averments of the plaint, defendant No.1 prayed for dismissal the suit.

6. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by both the parties were taken on record.

7. Trial Court came to the conclusion that half share of the suit property was ancestral in the hands of Nanwa; whereas the remaining ½ share was non-ancestral in his hands. It was further held that defendant No.4 Nanwa did not have any pressing necessity so as to sell the ancestral land and that the same could not have been sold by him as per the agricultural custom prevalent amongst the parties. Accordingly, trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that the impugned sale deed dated 05.06.1984 was illegal and not binding on t