GIANI RAM & ORS. versus RAMJI LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 944 · Decided: 11-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GIANI RAM & ORS. 
v. 
RAMJI LAL & ORS. 
March 11, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Punjab Customs-Female heirs not entitled to challenge sale b,v male 
owner-Father selling property in 1916 without legal necessity-Son filing 
A 
B 
suit in 1920 and obtaining declaration that. alienation not to enure beyond 
father's life time-Hindu Succession Act 1956 giving equal rights to· 
female heirs-Father dying in 1959-Right of female heirs to sue for 
possession of alienated property on basis of declaratory decree whether 
C 
barred by Punjab Custom (Pol"er to Contest) Act of 1920. 
Code of Civil Procedure 0. 41, r. 33-Power of Appellate Court to 
grant relief to parties to suit who have not app't!aled or filed cross·objec-
tions 
J, a Hindu Jat governed by the Punjab Customary Laws, sold without 
D 
legal necessity, in 1916, a fourth share of his ancestral land to one S. 
Under the Punjab Customary Laws females could not challenge a sale 
o'f ancestral property by a male owner. J's son G, in suit No. 75 of 1920 
obtained a declaratory decree to the effect ihat the sale to S would not 
enure beyond the life-time of J. When J died in 1959 the Hindu Succes-
sion Act, 1956 had come into force and his three sons, daughters and 
widow inherited his estate in equal shares. 
The three sons, the widow 
.and the daughters then filed a suit for possession of the aforesaid alieilat-
E 
ed land on the basis of the decree in suit No. 75 of 1920. Under s. 8 
of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920 only those com-
petent to contest an alienation c\>uld take advantage of a decree obtained 
by a reversioner. The trial court passed a decree for a half share of the 
suit property in favour of the sons only, holding that the female heirs of 
J were not entitled to take advantag~ of the decree in suit No. 75 of 1920. 
The District Court modified the decree by decreeing the suit in respect of 
the whole property in favour of the sons. In second appeal the High 
F 
Court restored the decree of the trial court holding that the claim of the 
female heirs of .J could not be upheld, firstly because of the Punjab custo-
mary law and s. 8 of Act 1 of 1920, and secondly because they had not 
filed anv appeals a~ainst the orders of the lower courts. 
In appeals by 
special leave before this Court, 
HELD : (i) The preliminary objections raised by the alienees that the 
suit in its entirety should have been dismissed, because by the enactment 
G 
of the Hindu Succession Act J was to be deemed a full owner and not-
withstanding the decree of 1920 his sons had after that Act no subsisting 
reve'rsionary interest in the property, must stand rejected. There is nothing 
in the Hindu Succession Act which retrospectively enlarges the power of 
a holder of ancestral land 
or nullifies 
a decree passed before the Act. 
[947 B-CJ 
(ii) Under the customary law of the Punjab the wife and the 
H 
daughters of a holder of ancestral property qould not sue to obtain a 
declaration that the alienation of ancestr11l 
property will not bind the 
·reversioners after t~ death of the aliener. But a declaratory decree 
GIAN! RAM v. RAMJI LAL (Shah, J.) 
945 
A 
obtained in a suit instituted by a reversioner competent to sue has the 
effect of restoring the. property alienated to the 
estate of the alienor. 
f947 GJ 
iB 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The "effect of the declaratory decree in the suit filed by G in 1920 
was merely to declare that by the sale, the interest conveyed to the alienee 
was to enure durin~ the life time of the alienor. 
The conclusion was 
therefore inevitable that the property alienated reverted to the estate of 
J at the point of his death and all persons who would, but for the aliena-
tion have taken the estate were entitled to inherit the same. If J had 
died before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 was enacted, the three sons 
would have taken the estate to the exclusion of the widow and the .two 
daughters. After the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act the estate 
devolved, by virtue of ss. 2 and 4(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, 
upon the three sons, the widow and the two daughters. [947 H-948 Bl 
The High Court was therefore in error in holding that because in the 
year 1920 the wife and daughters of J were incompetent to challenge the 
alienation of ancestral property by J, they could not, after the enactment 
of the Hindu. Succession Act inherit his estate when succession opened 
after. that Act came into force. [948 B-C] 
(iii) The

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