9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DLR Act. Bhumidar under the DLR Act is nothing but an owner of the land because by the DLR Act all that happened was that the ownership of the land which had vested with private landlords came to be vested in the State and the owners of the land, or the lessees of the land as the case maybe, in fact became the lessees of the land under the government, with the lessees being called by the term ‘bhumidar’ under the DLR Act. Bhumidar therefore is nothing but an owner of the lessee rights in the land with the State being the owner/lessor. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the DLR Act that the bhumidar rights which are vested in a karta or a coparcener ceases to be the subject matter of HUF and that bhumidari land becomes the self-acquired property of the karta or the coparcener in whose name the land stands or is mutated - it is not the subject matter of the DLR Act to convert the HUF property into self-acquired property simply because the owner of lessee rights is under the DLR Act a bhumidar. The only object of the DLR Act was to do away the intermediary who was the private owner/landlord and the private owner/landlord, is now substituted by the government/State, with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hasra No. 208/2(0-4) and 209(7-2) (kayami) situated in Village Mitraon, Delhi for sale consideration of ₹ 24,00,000/- registered as Document No. 548 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1768 on Pages 28-40. (3) Sale deed dated 20.01.2005 in respect of Plot measuring 600 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 115 min. situated in old Lal Dora of village Mitraon, Delhi for sale consideration of ₹ 2,50,000/- registered as Document No. 876 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1782 on Pages 69-74. (4) Another sale deed 20.01.2005 in respect of Plot measuring 110 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 115 min. situated in old Lal Dora of village Mitraon, Delhi for sale consideration of ₹ 1,00,000/- registered as Document No. 877 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1782 on Pages 75-80. (5) Sale deed dated 07.02.2005 in respect of Khasra No. 245 measuring 9 biswas situated in extended Lal dora of village Mitraon for sale consideration of ₹ 1,80,000/- registered as Document No. 1670 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1824 on pages 71 83. 4. The only issue before the trial court and which is also the issue before this Court is as to whether the said sale deeds could have been executed in favour of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been exhaustively and rightly dealt with by the trial court while deciding issue no.4 and the relevant observations of the trial court in this regard read as under:- 18. Issue No. (iv) Whether the suit properties are ancestral properties in the hand of defendant no. 1? OPP 18.1 Advocate Sh. R. K. Dahiya for defendant has vehemently argued by insisting that property inherited by defendant Sh. Prithvi Singh from his father constitutes his selfacquired property in which his children did not acquire any right by birth. Ld. counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Neelam Anr. vs. Sadaram Ors. bearing CS (OS) No. 823/2010 decided 30.01.2013 and other judgment titled Pratap vs. Shiv Shankar 164 (2009) DLT 479 for insisting that defendant Sh. Prithvi Singh being male heir had inherited the property from his father late Ram Singh as his self acquired property whereas plaintiffs have neither averred or pleaded in the plaint nor in their evidence that suit properties are coparcenary / HUF properties. 18.2 Relevant portion of aforesaid caselaws cited by defendants' counsel is reproduced below for reference: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot hold any property independent of the members. On a perusal of the aforementioned judgment of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, we approve the following proposition laid down by it : That the members of the joint family collectively own the coparcenary property. Each member has an interest in such property, though his interest becomes definite on partition. Till then, it is an undivided interest. The view expressed in Mahabir Singh and the other cases mentioned above, that the members were not the tenants of the holding because they had no interest in it, is, with respect, fallacious. In law, the members of the joint Hindu family together become the tenants of the holding. The coparcenary body as such, and as an entity apart from its members, does not own property. The property does not vest in the coparcenary but in its members, though collectively. 18.6 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para no. 12 of the next case titled Kavita and Anr . (Supra) has held: It is the admitted position that Sh. Mauzi Ram, father of the respondent/defendant no. 1 died in 1943. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the respondent/defendant no. 1 inherited the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty in the year 1943 for the benefit of his own male heirs subject to the condition that his own male progeny would also have also a share in it by birth and not as his self acquired property. Issue No. (iv) is therefore decided in favour of plaintiffs. 6. I completely agree with the aforesaid reasoning and conclusion of the trial court because it is now settled law in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhishter (supra) that inheritance by a person of a property from his parental ancestors before the year 1956 makes the inheritance as an HUF property and not a self-acquired property of the inheritor. 7. Counsel for the appellants/defendant nos. 2 and 3 argues that the property inherited by Sh. Prithvi Singh is a self-acquired property because the property in this case are the rights of bhumidar under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the DLR Act‟) and bhumidari rights under the DLR Act would not be an HUF property. Reliance for this purpose in this regard is placed by the appellants/defendant nos. 2 and 3 upon the following judgments:- (i) Nathu Vs. Hukam Singh Ors. AIR 1983 Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /State, with the private owner/landlord or the existing lessee of a property (in certain circumstances) of the private landlord, became the bhumidars under the DLR Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following conclusions emerge:- (i) The predecessor-in-interest Sh. Ram Singh being the father of Sh. Prithvi Singh died in the year 1943, and therefore, Sh. Prithvi Singh inherited the land of Sh. Ram Singh as an HUF property in his hands. (ii) The land being HUF property in the hands of Sh. Prithvi Singh, Sh. Prithvi Singh could only sell the same for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, and this is not even the case of the appellants/defendant nos. 2 and 3 that Sh. Prithvi Singh sold the land to them by the subject sale deeds because there existed legal necessity or benefit of estate, inasmuch as the only case of the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 was that the suit land was exclusively owned by Sh. Prithvi Singh, and therefore, Sh. Prithvi Singh had the right to transfer the suit lands to the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3. (iii) Once there existed no legal necessity or benefit of estate then trial court was justified in arriving at a conclusion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
