Mahinder Singh and others v. Ved Pal and others
Case Details
RSA-892-2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-892-2002 Reserved on 03.11.2025 Date of decision: 6.11.2025 Mahinder Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Ved Pal and others ...Respondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate and Mr. Prashant Sethi, Advocate for appellant Nos.1 to 4. Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate with Mr. Puran Prakash, Advocate and Ms. Bhoomika, Advocate for appellant No.5. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Devansh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. **** The plain*ffs are in Regular Second Appeal assailing the judg- ment and decree dated 28.09.2001 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal of defendant No.1-Ved Pal was allowed and the decree for possession granted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30.11.1999, was reversed. 2. Facts and Pleadings : The material facts are largely undisputed. Three brothers, namely Sumer Singh, Ajmer Singh, and Harkishan, sons of Harbans Singh, sold the suit property to defendant No.1-Ved Pal by way of a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1988 for a considera*on of ₹3,69,750/-. YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.06 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of total 4 Pages RSA-892-2002 The vendors are defendants No.2 to 4 herein. Plain*ffs are their respec*ve sons — plain*ffs No.1 & 2 being sons of Sumer Singh, plain*ffs No.3 & 4 sons of Ajmer Singh, and plain*ff No.5 son of Harkishan. 3. The plain*ffs challenged the aforesaid sale, asser*ng that the land was ancestral coparcenary property and that defendants No.2 to 4, as fathers, could not have alienated it without any legal necessity. They fur- ther alleged absence of bona fides in the transac*on. 4. Defendants No.2 to 4 were proceeded against ex parte. De- fendant No.1-Ved Pal, the purchaser, contested the suit, denying the ances- tral nature of the property and pleading that the sale was supported by legal necessity , namely, the marriages of the sons, repayment of loans, and establishment of business. He also raised objec*ons as to limita*on and non-joinder of par*es. 5. Findings of the Courts Below : The trial Court decreed the suit, holding the property to be ancestral and the sale unsupported by legal ne- cessity. However, the First Appellate Court, on re-apprecia*on of the evid- ence, reversed those findings and dismissed the suit, by holding that the suit land was ancestral but par*es did not cons*tute joint Hindu family and suit property was not coparcenary. It further held that the sale was for legal necessity; and that the suit, filed a@er three years of the impugned sale deed, was barred by limita8on. 6. Submissions : Learned counsel for the appellants-plain*ffs contended that the Appellate Court erred in discarding the findings of an- cestry recorded by the trial Court, and that the plea of legal necessity was not proved by cogent evidence. The respondent, on the other hand, sup- ported the impugned judgment. 7. Considera(cid:26)on and Analysis : As per Jamabandi for 1973-74 (Ex.P-5), the land stood in the name of Harbans Singh, father of defendants YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.06 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of total 4 Pages RSA-892-2002 No.2 to 4. Muta*on of inheritance bearing No.615 dated 20.11.1976, Ex.P-1 shows that on his death, the property devolved upon his four sons — Sumer, Ajmer, Shamsher, and Harkishan along with a daughter, Smt. Sundar Kaur. This, however, by itself does not establish that the property was ancestral. To qualify as ancestral coparcenary property, it must be shown that the property has descended undivided through at least four genera8ons of the male line. There is no evidence that Harbans Singh had himself inherited the property from his father. Consequently, the property that devolved upon his sons under muta*on No.615 cannot be treated as ancestral in their hands. 8. Moreover, the inheritance took place in 1976, long a@er the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As held in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen (AIR 1986 SC 1753) and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar [(1987) 1 RCR (Rent) 225], property devolving under Sec- *on 8 of the Act is not ancestral coparcenary property but becomes the ab- solute and separate property of the heir. Hence, the shares obtained by de- fendants No.2 to 4 from Harbans Singh were their individual proper*es. The principle was reaffirmed in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur [2019 (3) RCR (Civil) 529], wherein the Supreme Court clarified that only if the prop- erty is inherited by a male ancestor from his father, grandfather, or great- grandfather prior to 1956, does it retain its coparcenary character. 9. Since there is no proof that Harbans Singh derived *tle from his forefathers, the property in defendants No.2 to 4’s hands was self-ac- quired, and they were competent to alienate it. 10. Even assuming arguendo that the property was ancestral, the First Appellate Court rightly found that the aliena*on was for legal neces- sity. The sale deed (Ex.DW-4/1) expressly recites that the vendors required money to establish their cloth business at Kotkapura, having earlier mi- YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.06 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of total 4 Pages RSA-892-2002 grated from West Pakistan and previously engaged in hawking clothes. DW- 1 Surinder Singh tes*fied that he made due enquiries regarding such neces- sity on behalf of vendee Ved Pal before the transac*on, and evidence cor- roborated that the vendors had indeed opened M/s Sardar Cloth House at Kotkapura. These facts cons*tute genuine family necessity recognised in law. There is no perversity in the Appellate Court’s apprecia*on of this evidence warran*ng interference by this court. 11. S*ll further, the sale deed was executed on 10.10.1988, whereas the suit was ins*tuted on 09.10.1992, nearly four years later. A suit seeking possession based on challenge to an aliena*on necessarily in- volves a prayer for seJng aside the sale deed, which must be filed within three years under Ar*cle 59 of the Limita*on Act, 1963. The plain*ffs hav- ing failed to do so, the suit was rightly held *me-barred. 12. Conclusion : On a cumula*ve assessment, the findings of the First Appellate Court are based on correct apprecia*on of evidence and seLled principles of Hindu law. No substan*al ques*on of law arises for determina*on in this second appeal. Consequently, the appeal is hereby
Decision
dismissed being devoid of any merit, with no order as to costs. 06.11.2025 Yogesh (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.06 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 4 of total 4 Pages