Case Note & Summary
The present civil appeal arises from a property dispute concerning agricultural land in Village Khangarh, District Ferozepur, Punjab. The appellant, Arshnoor Singh, is the great-grandson of Lal Singh, who owned large tracts of land. Lal Singh died in 1951, and his only son Inder Singh inherited the property under Mitakshara law. In 1964, Inder Singh partitioned the property among his three sons—Gurcharan Singh, Dharam Singh, and Swaran Singh—in equal shares, with each son transferring one-fourth share back to Inder Singh. Dharam Singh, the appellant's father, inherited a share of the property. The appellant was born on 22.08.1985 to Dharam Singh through his first wife. On 01.09.1999, Dharam Singh executed two registered sale deeds in favour of Harpal Kaur (Respondent No. 1) for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 4,87,500, but both Dharam Singh and Harpal Kaur admitted before the Collector that no consideration was paid and the amount was mentioned only for registration. Dharam Singh married Harpal Kaur on 29.09.1999. The appellant, upon attaining majority on 22.08.2003, filed a suit for declaration on 23.11.2004, challenging the sale deeds as illegal and void, claiming the suit property was coparcenary property. During the pendency of the suit, Harpal Kaur sold the property to Kulwant Singh and Jung Bahadur (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) on 30.10.2007. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant on 29.04.2011, holding the property was ancestral coparcenary property and the sale deeds were without legal necessity. The appellate court affirmed this on 13.01.2014. However, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a regular second appeal, reversed the concurrent findings on 13.11.2018, holding that the coparcenary ceased after the 1964 partition and the appellant had no locus to challenge the sale deeds. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court and appellate court decisions. The Court held that the property inherited by Inder Singh in 1951 under Mitakshara law remained coparcenary property, and the appellant, born in 1985, became a coparcener by birth. The sale deeds were without consideration and legal necessity, hence void. The subsequent sale during pendency was hit by lis pendens.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Coparcenary Property - Succession under Mitakshara Law - Property inherited by a son from his father prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, remains coparcenary property in his hands, and a son born after such inheritance becomes a coparcener by birth - The court held that Inder Singh inherited the property from his father Lal Singh in 1951 under Mitakshara law, and thus the property retained its character as coparcenary property; the partition in 1964 did not change this character as it was a partition among coparceners - The appellant, born in 1985, became a coparcener by birth and had locus to challenge the alienation (Paras 7-8). B) Hindu Law - Alienation of Coparcenary Property - Legal Necessity - A coparcener cannot alienate coparcenary property without legal necessity or benefit to the estate - The court held that Dharam Singh's sale of the suit property to Respondent No. 1 without any consideration and without legal necessity was void - The admission of Dharam Singh and Respondent No. 1 before the Collector that no consideration was paid established the lack of legal necessity (Paras 2.6, 2.10, 8). C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Lis Pendens - Section 52 - A transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is hit by lis pendens and is void - The court held that the Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 during the pendency of the suit was illegal and null and void (Paras 2.9, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit property was coparcenary property or self-acquired property of Dharam Singh; and the validity of the Sale Deeds executed on 01.09.1999 by Dharam Singh in favour of Respondent No. 1, and the subsequent Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the trial court and appellate court decrees. The sale deeds dated 01.09.1999 and 30.10.2007 were declared illegal, null and void. The appellant was held entitled to joint possession of the suit property with his father's legal heirs.
Law Points
- Coparcenary property
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Mitakshara law
- Sale Deed without consideration
- Legal necessity
- Locus standi
- Lis pendens
