9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (3) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1920, the gift-deed was not binding on them. The suit was decreed by the trial court on May 31, 1966 and that decree was con- firmed in appeal on October 16, 1967. (2) In between, on July 10, 1966 Mula adopted the respondent. On March 11, 1970, appellant No. 13 executed in favour of appellants 1 to 12 a lease in respect of the property which was the subject matter of the. gift. Mula died on August 28, 1971. (3) On December 13, 1971 respondent filed the present suit against the appellants for possession of certain properties including the property which Mula had gifted to appellant No. 13. The suit was decreed by the trial court on January 29, 1971 and the decree was confirmed in appeal by the District Court and the High Court. (4) On Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e became final, with the result that as on August 28, 1971, when Mula-died, the property which he had sought to gift away to Bhagwati Devi, was free from the encumbrance of the purported gift. By the present suit, the respondent merely asks for possession of the property in respect of which Mula had executed the deed of gift. The basis on which he has asked for that relief is that upon the death of Mula in 1971, the gift ceased to be operative by reason of the decree passed in Suit No. 143 of 1965. It seems to us plain that he has not and he need not have contested the validity of the gift-deed since that question was decided finally in the aforesaid suit. (6) Section 7 of the Punjab Custom(Power to Contest) Act, 1920 provided initially th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons, including the wife and the daughters of the de- ceased, were entitled to the benefit of that restoration. Since the property alienated had reverted to the estate of the alienor at the point of his death, the widow and daughters, who also became heirs along with the sons under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were held entitled to obtain possession of the ancestral property. Mr. Juneja attempted to get over the effect of this decision by invoking the provisions of s. 8 of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1 of 1920, which provides that when a person obtains a decree declaring that an alienation of ancestral immovable property is not binding on him, according to. custom, the decree shall enure for the benefit of all persons entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
