9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property received by Gulab Singh on partition retained its character as coparcenary property or became his self-acquired property. 2. Validity of the sale deeds and release deed executed by Gulab Singh. Issue 1: Character of Property Post-Partition The trial court concluded that the property received by Gulab Singh in partition, although initially separate, attained the characteristics of coparcenary property after the birth of the plaintiff, Rohit Chauhan. The trial court's finding reads: "the property which Gulab Singh had got by the decree was although his separate property qua other relation but became JHF property immediately when Rohit Chauhan was born thereby getting characteristic of coparcenary property." The lower appellate court, however, held that the property received by Gulab Singh on partition "lost the character of coparcenary property and became the self-acquired property of Gulab Singh." The court stated: "96 Kanals of land was received by Gulab Singh from his father Budhu on the basis of consent decree or on the basis of will and not by survivorship and this property lost the character of coparcenary property and was self-acquired property of Gulab Singh." The High Court dismissed the second appeal, observing: "Finding of the lower appellate court that the suit land is not proved to be ancestral or coparcenary property is fully justified by the documentary evidence and admitted facts." Issue 2: Validity of Sale Deeds and Release Deed The Supreme Court found substance in the submission that after the birth of the plaintiff, the property became coparcenary property, and the plaintiff acquired interest in it. The Court stated: "A coparcener has no definite share in the coparcenary property but he has an undivided interest in it... the moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest in that and become a coparcener." The Court distinguished the case from Bhanwar Singh v. Puran, noting that the issue in the present case was the status of the plaintiff vis-à-vis his father who got property on partition of the ancestral property. The Court held: "Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was competent to sell, mortgage and deal with the property as his property in the manner he liked. Had he done so before the birth of plaintiff, Rohit Chauhan, he was not competent to object to the alienation made by his father before he was born or begotten." However, since the property was ancestral and the plaintiff was born, the sale deeds and release deed executed by Gulab Singh were deemed illegal, null, and void as they were not executed as Karta for legal necessity. The Court concluded: "Hence, the sale deeds and the release deed executed by Gulab Singh to the extent of entire coparcenary property are illegal, null and void." Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court as affirmed by the High Court, and restored the trial court's judgment. The Court granted liberty to the parties to work out their remedies in appropriate proceedings regarding the property that would have fallen in Gulab Singh's share at the time of execution of the sale deeds and release deed. No order as to costs was made.
|
