9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property inherited by a Hindu from his maternal grandfather is ancestral property qua his own sons under the customary law prevailing in Punjab. 2. Whether the transactions of mortgage and sale executed by the respondent were binding on the appellant's reversionary rights. 3. Application of the principle of stare decisis. Detailed Analysis: 1. Ancestral Property under Customary Law in Punjab: The core issue in this case was whether the property inherited by a Hindu from his maternal grandfather is considered ancestral property with respect to his own sons under the customary law prevailing in Punjab. The appellant contended that under the custom prevailing in Punjab, the property was ancestral, allowing him to challenge its alienation by his father. The trial court initially held that the property was ancestral and the alienations were not for consideration or legal necessity. However, the High Court later ruled that the property inherited by respondent 10 was not ancestral property concerning the appellant, thus dismissing the appellant's suit. The Supreme Court examined several precedents, including Full Bench decisions of the Punjab High Court and Privy Council rulings. The earlier Full Bench decisions in Lehna v. Musammat Thakri ([1895] 30 P.R. 124) and Musammat Attar Kaur v. Nikkoo ((1924) I.L.R. 5 Lah. 356) suggested that property inherited from a maternal grandfather could be considered ancestral. However, these decisions were not based on concrete evidence of custom but rather on general principles and a priori considerations. The Supreme Court found the later Full Bench decision in Narotam Chand v. Mst. Durga Devi (I.L.R. [1950] Pun. 1) more persuasive. This decision, influenced by the Privy Council ruling in Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai ((1937) L.R. 64 I.A. 250), held that property inherited from a maternal grandfather is not ancestral property under the customary law of Punjab. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, stating that the property inherited from a maternal grandfather does not become ancestral property for the inheritor's sons. 2. Transactions of Mortgage and Sale: The appellant sought a declaration that the mortgage and sale transactions executed by respondent 10 were not binding on his reversionary rights, arguing that they were without consideration and not supported by legal necessity. The trial court found that the transactions were not for consideration or legal necessity but dismissed the appellant's claim regarding the mortgage because he was not born at the time it was executed. The High Court, however, dismissed the appellant's suit entirely, concluding that the property was not ancestral and thus the appellant had no right to challenge the transactions. 3. Principle of Stare Decisis: The appellant argued that the earlier Full Bench decisions should be followed based on the principle of stare decisis. The Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of stare decisis, which suggests that a principle of law settled by a series of decisions should generally be followed. However, the Court noted that the principle is not inflexible and should not perpetuate an erroneous rule. Given that the earlier Full Bench decisions were not based on concrete evidence of custom and were effectively overruled by the Privy Council's observations, the Supreme Court found no reason to adhere to them. The Court concluded that the earlier decisions did not establish a binding custom and that the later Full Bench decision, supported by the Privy Council's ruling, correctly represented the law. Therefore, the principle of stare decisis did not apply in this case to uphold the earlier erroneous decisions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's finding that the property in question is not ancestral property and that the appellant has no right to bring the present suit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the Supreme Court, with each party bearing their own costs in the lower courts.
|
