Property allotted as rehabilitation compensation in lieu of ancestral land lost during partition retains its ancestral character as coparcenary property; a Karta cannot alienate such property via gift without legal necessity or valid consent, rendering such transactions and subsequent transfers void.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Vide this common order, this Court hereby disposes off all the above-said appeals by this common judgment since common question of law is involved therein. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken only from the lead case i.e. RSA-1893-1989.

2. The present regular second appeals have arisen out of a judgment dated 03.12.1987 for possession or in the alternative for joint possession, whereby suit by the plaintiff/ appellant was dismissed qua 86 kanals 2 Marlas of land at Village Jhamavas, District NUH, erstwhile District Gurugram, and the judgment and decree dated 09.03.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon in the appeal preferred by the him, which was also dismissed having no merits, meaning thereby this Court will examine the concurrent findings as to whether the suit property was coparcenary, i.e. issue No. 1 was returned against the plaintiff/appellant, and the impugned gift is invalid and void or not, which will have the effect on the subsequent transfer of property in dispute by defendant/respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to defendants/respondents No.6 to 13.

3. In addition to above, issue No. 4 and 6 to the effect that whether defendants No. 6 to 13 are bona fide purchasers for value without notice and would have the protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or not along with issue No. 8 and 9 which was adjudicated against the plaintiff by both the courts below.

Factual Backdrop

4. The factual aspects would emerge out of the backdrop which was set into motion with the averment that Hemraj was defendant No. 1 in the original suit and after his death, the LRs brought on record is the father of Chakkan Lal plaintiff whereas Vasdev, Devaraj, Kishanlal and Keval Ram, defendants No. 2 to 5.

5. Hemraj owned various properties in West Pakistan district Dera Ghazi Khan, who migrated to India and in lieu thereof was allotted a land measuring 92 kanals 7 marlas as detailed in Annexure ‘A’ to the plaint at village Jhamavas, District Nuh erstwhile District Gurugram. The plaintiff/appellant Chhakkan Lal would plead that the said property was joint Hindu family property being ancestral, in the hands of Hemraj as a coparcenar of the joint Hindu family consisting of Hemraj, his five sons as well as the plaintiff Chhakkan Lal. Hemraj gifted away the entire land vide deed dated 03.08.1967 measuring 92 kanals 7 marlas along with another plot number 95/2 measuring 319 square yards that too situated at village Jhamavas in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who happened to be his sons but excluded the plaintiff depriving him the legal right over the said property and benefit arising therefrom being a joint Hindu family.

6. The remaining defendants happen to be subsequent vendees of the suit land from the donees of their vendees, though defendant No.5 being the brother of plaintiff-appellant and of defendant/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was impleaded as being the member of the coparcenary having interest in the suit land. The gift deed has been challenged o