ARSHNOOR SINGH versus HARPAL KAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 999 · Decided: 01-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
999
ARSHNOOR SINGH
v.
HARPAL KAUR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5124 of 2019)
JULY 01, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Family Law – Succession under Mitakshara Law – Appellant
is the great-grandson of one ‘LS’, who was the owner of large tracts
of agricultural land – ‘LS’ passed away in 1951, and his entire
property was inherited by his only son ‘IS’ – This property was
partitioned between three sons of ‘IS’ – Present matter pertains to
the property (‘suit property’) which came to the share of one of his
sons viz. ‘DS’, father of the appellant – ‘DS’ had only one son, the
Appellant, who was born to ‘DS’ through his 1st wife –’DS’
purportedly sold the entire suit property to Respondent No.1 vide
two registered Sale Deeds dtd. 01.09.99 – Subsequently, ‘DS’ got
married to Respondent No.1– Appellant filed suit against ‘DS’ and
Respondent No.1, for declaration that the suit property was
coparcenary property, and hence the two Sale Deeds in favour of
Respondent No.1 were illegal, null and void – Suit decreed in favour
of the appellant – Respondent No.1 along with the subsequent
purchasers, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed common appeal – Dismissed
– Respondent Nos.1-3 filed second appeal – High Court allowed
the appeal – Held: In the present case, the succession opened in
1951 on the death of ‘LS’, prior to the commencement of the 1956
Act – Nature of the property inherited by his son ‘IS’ was coparcenary
– Under Mitakshara law, whenever a male ancestor inherits any
property from any of his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above
him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees below him, would
get an equal right as coparceners in that property – Even though
‘IS’ had effected partition of the coparcenary property amongst his
sons in 1964, the nature of the property inherited by his sons would
remain as coparcenary property qua their male descendants upto
three degrees below them – Property allotted to ‘DS’ in partition
continued to remain coparcenary property qua his son, the appellant–
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 999
999
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
Appellant became coparcener in the suit property on his birth i.e.
on 22.08.85 – Respondent No.1 failed to discharge the burden of
proving that ‘DS’ had executed the two Sale Deeds in her favour
out of legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate – In fact, as per
record, the Sale Deeds were without any consideration whatsoever
– Sale Deeds dtd. 01.09.99 cancelled as being illegal, null and
void – Consequently, subsequent Sale Deed dtd. 30.10.07 executed
by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 is hit by
the doctrine of lis pendens – Judgment of the Single Judge, set aside
– Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Doctrine of lis pendens.
Family Law – Power of Karta to sell coparcenary property –
Held: Power of Karta to sell coparcenary property is subject to
certain restrictions viz. the sale should be for legal necessity or for
the benefit of the estate – Onus for establishing the existence of
legal necessity is on the alienee.
Doctrines – Doctrine of lis pendens – Principle of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 ‘IS’ had inherited the entire suit property from
his father ‘LS’ upon his death. The succession in this case opened
in 1951 prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 when ‘IS’ succeeded to his father ‘LS’s property in
accordance with the old Hindu Mitakshara law. Under Mitakshara
law, whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of
his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him, then his
male legal heirs upto three degrees below him, would get an equal
right as coparceners in that property. After the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 came into force, this position has undergone a change.
Post – 1956, if a person inherits a self-acquired property from his
paternal ancestors, the said property becomes his self-acquired
property, and does not remain coparcenary property. If succession
opened under the old Hindu law, i.e. prior to the commencement
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the parties would be governed
by Mitakshara law. The property inherited by a male Hindu from
his paternal male ancestor shall be coparcenary property in his
hands vis-à-vis his male descendants upto three degrees below
him. The nature of property will remain as coparcenary property
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1001
even after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
[Paras 7, 7.3, 7.5 and 7.6] [1009-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.