Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The suffering of this consent decree led to filing of aforesaid two suits by the remaining three brothers. One suit was filed by Jasmer Singh and another was filed by Ajmer Singh and Hardial Singh against their father Dasa Singh and brother Gian Singh. In their respective suits, they pleaded that the land in question measuring 140 kanals 5 marlas is a Joint Hindu Family property, in which they have 1/5 share each in the said property. It was further pleaded that in the year 1988, a family settlement was arrived at between the parties, in which the aforesaid land was partitioned in five equal shares. But no specific khasra number was given to any one, as the actual partition was to be made in the partition proceedings before the revenue court. It was further pleaded that without doing the actual partition, their father Dasa Singh suffered a consent decree on 8.12.1989 in favour of one of his son namely-Gian Singh , vide which land measuring 41 kanals II marlas was transferred by way of specific khasra numbers without any legal right and the said decree is wholly illegal and void.

4. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suits filed by the plaintiffs. It was held that the land in question was Joint Hindu Family property, in which each of the coparcener was having 1/5 share. However, the claim of the plaintiffs regarding setting aside the consent decree dated 8.12.1989 was declined while holding that the sons being coparceners in the Joint Hindu Family were not competent to challenge the alienation made by the Karta of the family during this life time. Against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, both the parties filed appeals. Two appeals were filed by the plaintiffs against part of the judgment, vide which their suits regarding setting aside the consent decree was dismissed. Two appeals were filed by the defendants against the portion of the judgment, vide which it was held that the land in question was joint Hindu Family property, in which each coparcener was having 1/5th share.

"Obviously, the above land total measuring 34 kanals was never held by the ancestors of the parties and as such this cannot be held to be Joint Hindu Family property of the parties at any point of time."

13. The learned first appellate court has totally ignored the fact that this Joint Hindu Family was having a nucleus and from the income of that nucleus small acquisitions by sale of pre-emption decree were made. Once such nucleus is established, then the burden to prove that the property was not acquired with the help of that nucleus shifts upon the party, who asserts the same. In the present case, the defendants did not lead any evidence to this effect. On the contrary, the plaintiffs have led the evidence to the effect that these small properties were acquired by Dasa Singh being Karta of the family from the nucleus of the Joint Hindu Family property. There is another aspect, which has been ignored by the learned first appellate court. The trial Court has relied upon the admission made by the defendants in the earlier suit, in which the consent decree was passed, while holding that the land in question measuring 140 kanals 5 marlas is the Joint Hindu Family property. The admission of the defendants, made in the earlier suit, to the effect that the land measuring 140 kanals 5 marlas was the Joint Hindu Family property, is very clear. Copies of the plaint and written statement filed in the earlier suit have been proved in the present case, which clearly establish the admission made by the defendants. Now, they cannot be allowed to resile from their earlier admission that the land in question is the Joint Hindu family property. Thus, I reverse the findings of the learned first appellate court regarding nature of the property and uphold the finding recorded by the learned trial court in this regard and it is held that the land measuring 140 kanals 5 marlas is the Joint Hindy Family property of the parties.

14. Regarding the second question i.e. regarding the validity of the consent decree dated 8.12.1989, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned first appellate Court is correct and the same deserves to be affirmed. Once it is held that the land in question is Joint Hindu Family Property, then part of such land cannot be transferred by a consent decree. The alleged consent decree was admittedly not registered, therefore, the same was rightly held to be illegal and void by the learned first appellate court, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh's case (supra).