Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA
Indraj – Appellant
Versus
Niranjan – Respondent
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/-.
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 court affirmed that ancestral property rights are inherent to all coparceners, and sales executed without consent are invalid.
(1) Coparcenary property vis-à-vis ancestral property – By definition, ancestral property is a coparcenary property where “coparceners” are legal heirs with inherent interest in property from birth –....
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 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....
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
