Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. Reliance on behalf of plaintiff is further placed upon case titled as Daryao Singh & Anr. Vs. Bhola & Ors., in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 792 of 1976 decided by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 07.08.1984 to contend that ancestral property could only be alienated for legal necessity. defendant no. 2 did not have any legal necessity, so sale by defendant no. 2, in favour of defendant no. 1 (vide sale deed dated 10.09.2007) is null and void.

21. Per contra, counsel for the defendant no. 1 contends that pedigree table is not disputed. However, the suit property which devolved upon Sh. Suresh (defendant no. 2) was in nature of separate property. Reliance is placed upon case titled as ' Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur Etc. Vs. Chander Sen etc.' decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16.07.1986 wherein it has been held that the property which devolves on son, is separate property vis-a-vis the children of such son Praveen & Ors. Vs. Neelkanth Promotors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 23 of 63 on whom the property devolves. It is further argued that PW1 Smt. Sushila in her cross-examination dated 02.09.2024 admitted that she was married with Sh. Suresh in the year 1985 and Sh. Bhor Singh had already expired by then. It is argued that at the time of opening of succession after death of Sh. Bhor Singh, the plaintiffs were not even in existence, so they have no right to the suit property. Further reliance is placed upon case titled as Bhanwar Singh Vs. Puran & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 1233 of 2008 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 12.02.2008 (citation: [2008] 2 SCR 775) to contend that once property devolves u/s 8 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 it is succeeded as tenants in common and not joint tenants by virtue of Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and thus Sh. Suresh had succeeded the property as separate property. It is further argued that question of legal necessity will not arise in the facts of present case as the plaintiffs have no right in the suit property. Further reliance is placed upon case titled as Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors. decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 02.03.2016 to contend that once Praveen & Ors. Vs. Neelkanth Promotors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 24 of 63 property devolves u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the same ceases to be joint family property.

37. Plaintiff has to stand on his own legs which he failed to do. (Reliance is placed upon case titled as State of M.P. v. Nomi Singh, reported in (2015) 14 S.C.C. 450) FINDINGS ON SUBMISSIONS RAISED First argument dealt with:

38. The submission on behalf of plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to Sh. Surat Singh. After death of Sh. Surat Singh, it was inherited by Sh. Kundan. After death of Sh. Kundan, it was inherited by Sh. Bhor Singh. After death of Sh. Bhor Singh, the same Praveen & Ors. Vs. Neelkanth Promotors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 35 of 63 was inherited by Sh. Suresh, who is father of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs along with their father Sh. Suresh are coparceners and therefore Sh. Suresh could not have executed sale deed registered on 10/09/2007 Ex P-3 in favour of defendant No. 1 dated 10.09.2007, is without merits. These submission are rejected as the suit property which devolved upon Sh. Suresh (defendant No.2) from his father late Sh. Bhor Singh who died in 1962 (after 1956 when Hindu Succession Act was in operation) was in nature of separate property. Reliance is rightly placed by counsel for first defendant upon case titled as 'Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur Etc. Vs. Chander Sen etc.' decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16.07.1986 wherein it has been held that the property which devolves on son, is separate property vis-a-vis the children of such son on whom the property devolves. Further reasons for rejection of this submissions of plaintiffs are also detailed in paragraphs to follow.

40. Reliance on case titled as Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors., decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 11.08.2020 , by counsel for the plaintiff also does not help the case of plaintiff. Their is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in this case by Hon'ble Supreme Court but for applicability of this case, the coparcenary must exist on 09/09/2005. In the facts of present case, the coparcenary has not been shown to have existed on 09/09/2005.

41. Reliance on behalf of plaintiff upon case titled as Daryao Singh & Anr. Vs. Bhola & Ors., in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 792 of 1976 decided by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 07.08.1984 to contend that ancestral property could only be alienated for legal necessity. defendant no. 2 did not have any legal necessity, so sale by defendant no. 2, in favour of defendant no. 1 (vide sale deed registered on 10/09/2007 Ex P-3) is null and void also is misplaced. Their is no Praveen & Ors. Vs. Neelkanth Promotors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 38 of 63 dispute with the proposition of law laid down in this case. However this case does not aid case of plaintiffs as the suit property which devolved upon Sh. Suresh (defendant no. 2) from his father late Sh. Bhor Singh who died in 1962 (after 1956 when Hindu Succession Act was in operation) was in nature of separate property. Reliance is rightly placed by counsel for first defendant upon case titled as 'Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur Etc. Vs. Chander Sen etc.' decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16.07.1986 wherein it has been held that the property which devolves on son, is separate property vis-a-vis the children of such son on whom the property devolves.

"...21. Applying the law to the facts of this case, it is clear that on the death of Jagannath Singh in 1973, the joint family property which was ancestral property in the hands of Jagannath Singh and the other coparceners, devolved by succession under Section 8 of the Act. This being the case, the ancestral property ceased to be joint family property on the date of death of Jagannath Singh, and the other coparceners and his widow held the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. This being the case, on the date of the birth of the appellant in 1977 the said ancestral property, not being joint family property, the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable. The appeal is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. ...."