DHIYAN SINGH AND ANOTHER versus JUGAL KISHORE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 22-02-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SIR SYED FAZL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Feb. 22. 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ti. 
DHIYAN SINGH AND ANOTHER 
JUGAL KISHORE AND ANOTHER. 
[SAIYAD FAZL Au and VIVIAN BosE JJ.] 
[1952J 
Arbitration-Award-"Malik 
Mustaqil", 
meaning 
of-Whe-
ther conveys absolute estate-Award acted upon-Estoppel against 
contesting its validity. 
S and B were sons of two brothers respectively. S died in 
1884 leaving a daughter 
M, surviving him. 
On the 
death of 
S dispute arose between B and M. B claimed the entire estate 
by survivorship, alleging that S died in a itate of jointness with 
him and that all the properties were joint family properties and 
M was entitled only to maintenance. 
The dispute was referred 
to arbitration and an award was delivered. 
Under it the suit 
properties were given to M and the rest 
of the estate then in 
dispute was given to B. 
The operative part of the award stated 
inter alia that B, first party, and M, the second party, were held 
entitled to 
specified shares in 
the properties 
in 
dispute 
and 
each had become permanent owner 
(Malik Mustaqil) of his or 
her share. 
A division was effected and ever since the date of the 
award in 1884 each branch continued in possession of the pro· 
perties allotted to it and each had been dealing with them as 
absolute owner. 
The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs were 
bound by the award and were in any evc::nt 
estopped from chal· 
lenging it. 
In 1941 
B's grandsons instituted a suit claiming 
the 
pro· 
perties allotted to M claiming that on the death of S his daughter 
M succeeded to a limited estate and reversion opened out on her 
death in 1929 and the plaintiffs were entitled as next reversioners, 
as M's son had predeceased her. The defendants {M's grandsons) 
alleged that the 
property possessed by 
M consisted 
partly of 
property which belonged to her and partly 
of property which 
belonged exclusively to he;r father to which 
she 
siua:eeded as 
daughter. 
H~ld, that the award gave an absolute estate 
to' M as the 
words uMalik Mustaqil" were strong, clear and unambiguous and 
were not qualified by other words and circumstances appearing in 
the same document 
in the present case. 
Held further, that even if the award be assumed to be invalid 
the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the plea of estoppcl. 
There 
was estoppcl against B because by his conduct he induced M to 
believe that the decision of the arbitrator was fair and reasonable 
and both the parties would be bound by it and he induced her 
to act 
greatly to. 
her detriment and to 
alter her position by 
accepting the award and never attempting to go behind it as long 
, 
S.C.R . 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
479 
.as he lived; there was estoppel against B's sons because it des-
'' cended to them as they stepped into his shoes, and further there 
was independent estoppel against B's son 
K by his acts and 
conduct as evidenced in this case. 
There was estoppel against 
plaintiffs who claimed_ through their father K. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 8 of 1951. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 12th 
October, 1944, of 
the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad 
(Allsop and Malik JJ.) 
in First Appeal 
No. 374 of 
1941 
arising out of a Decree dated 31st 
July, 1941, of the Court of the Civil Judge, Moradabad, 
in Original Suit No. 9 of 1941. 
-
Bakshi Tek Chand (S. K. Kapoor, with him) for the 
appellant. 
·t 
Achhru Ram (/wala Prasad, with him) for the 
respondent. 
1952. February 22. The judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
BosE J.-This is a litigation between two branches 
of a family whose common ancestor was one Megh 
Raj 
Singh. The family tree is 
as follows : 
I . 
Jawahar Singh 
Megh Raj Singh 
I 
I 
Shanker Lal (d. 1884) 
Mada~Singh 
-
I 
Brijlaf (d. 1889 or (1890) 
I 
Daughter : Mst. Mohan Dei 
(d. Oct.1929) 
Husband: Narain Das 
I 
Shri Kis~an Das 
(d. March 1929) 
I 
I 
I 
. 
Mst.Deok• 
(d. 1894) 
I 
· h I 
1 
I. 
d 
K1s an La 
Mahabir Prasa 
(d. 21-5-1940) 
(d. 1921) 
l I. 
I 
Juga Ki shore Amar Nath 
Plff. 1 
Plff.2 
Dhiyan Singh 
Deft. l 
Jai Bhagwan Singh 
Deft. 2 
I 
I 
Obas Ram 
Onkar Prasad 
The dispute is about property which, according to 
~ 
the plaintiffs, formed part of Shanker Lal's estate. 
The plyaintiffs state that the two branches of the 
..1.. 7 
family were separate at all material times; that on 
1952 
Dhiyan Singh 
and Anotht:r 
v. 
/ugal Kishore, 
11nd Another. 
1952 
Dhiyan Singh 
and Another 
v. 
fugal Kishore 
11nd Another. 
Bose/. 
480 
SUPREME COUR

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