Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose suit seeking declaration to the extent that the Release Deed (Dastbardari) bearing Vasika No. 1696/1 dated 06.02.2007 is void abinitio and is not binding upon the plaintiffs stands dismissed by the Courts below.

The dispute in short was that one Surat Singh executed a release deed dated 06.02.2007 in favour of his two grandsons(defendants herein) qua the entire property to the exclusion of other children and grandchildren. The basis of the suit was that the land in the hands of Surat Singh was ancestral and coparcenary property and hence Surat Singh was not competent to transfer the suit property.

6 of 10 Neutral Citation No:= RSA-2687-2022 2007 by Surat Singh in favour of his two grandson and to exclusion of all other coparceners deserves to be set aside.

After hearing the learned Senior Counsel at length and perusing the record, it transpires that as per the pedigree table, one Mamraj bequeath his property to his son Udmi who had four sons. Udmi in his lifetime executed a Gift Deed in the year 1949 and divided his estate in favour of his sons equally. The act of the father to equally distribute his estate during his lifetime cannot be equated as accelerated succession merely on the basis that had Udmi expired intestate, then also the partition would have taken place in the same manner. This analogy deserves to be negated for the reason that had the transfer deed not been done equally among brothers, there could have been a possibility of triggering of the litigation in the year 1949 itself. The intention of the father to equally distribute the land, which he did, cannot be equated with accelerated succession. Therefore, the arguments raised by the learned Senior counsel that it was not a simplicitor case of transfer but was a case of accelerated succession does not hold good in the present set of circumstances. There is nothing on record to show that Udmi had any reason not to distribute his estate in equal shares to all his children therefore the share which fell to Surat Singh from Udmi could not be declared as ancestral property and became his self-acquired property. Consequently, Surat Singh was well within his rights and the nature of property becoming self-acquired upon the execution of the oral gift deed, entitled Surat Singh to execute the impugned Dastbardari executed vide Vasika No. 1696/1 dated 06.02.2007.

In fact, the appellants-plaintiffs had only filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the deed of Dastbardari bearing Vasika No. 1696/1 dated 06.02.2007 is void ab initio, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs with a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Both the learned courts below have extensively dealt with the entire matter and rather the First Appellate Court has rightly corrected the error in the trial Court judgment. Finding no infirmity in the orders passed by both the Courts below, rather the same being detailed and self-explanatory, detailing out the correct position of law, the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed.