LexGOPAL SINGH AND OTHERS. versus UJAGAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I•g·· -Shri Audh .J1eh'a1j. Singh v. GtJ.jadhar .Jiiipuria ·and Others. 1954 -April 2 86 SURR1EMiE C0URT RRP0R11S [1$5] couldi-eject-.. his.• .owh tanants .in: exerdse,.of..the.,right: of pre-emption .. ,,:fhe. ·· .apJ'ellaM,;wilLhave ·_the- cost_s, -,of, this appeal:from respondent-- -No .. L, Further, costs ..• wi!).,ahide the~iresult>., 1 11 • ,:. •Ii· .. ,,1:1;,,;. · .• , ... ; ·1: .• , ,. • ' ' ~ I ' I ,, "'' ' ' Appe~z; al,lo'wed: q ' ' • 1 "." "•(. I : , . • ; • < ' .I ; I! . 1 ! ·'' "' J ; .:. ·UJAGAR SINGH AND OTHERS. [B: k. MuKHEkJ~..\; Vi~A;, Bosii, GfiuLA'.M fJ:.s..\:N' . '• ., •' '"'' 11 \' •• /'· .. ! ·. ·" ,;,' •. __ , . , , al)q YJ;;NK~TAl}AMAAX\'.AR JJ,.] ..... , , " Custom-Succession-Agricultural /ats of village Ralla, !Tahsil Mansa,. Dis(rict B,arnala, State Pep;u-Non-ancestrql property- .l)aughter;'s so,n.r ~- coll~t~rals:_Gift by daufiht(r of n.on~'ahcestfal pro- _perty in favOU1; OJ h-e;.· sofis..:...... Whether qmou'ntS to· 'acceleration-Omis- sion io' include a Small Portibn ·of' th~ ·.whole . property in 'the gift- Surrender:--.-:V alidity of.· • ', < •- . : ~ ·, -Held, that among ag'Ficulturak· 1·ats -of · Village Ralla,. in the ·District, .of ·Barn~la, Sµte· .of Pepsu,. daughter'~' ~9p.s v,:ill inher:it, to the .. exclusiOJ).:'.9£ 1c;9Jla_t.era;l~,, ·~he· f!On-a,nce~tra~. ~aµqs whicP.. had devolved by inherit~nce_ on -.~h~ii: motlier. , · . ' A. g'i.fr q~; the_ d,~ughF~ 1~ ~o ht;!r· ~~,ns~ ~oul?. ~.m9unt.· tQ, acce\era- tion of su"ccession.. Omission to includt;" a Sm<!-11 portion Of the whole Property' due ·to ignoiap.t~ ·or ove'rsight does not affect the validity ·of the surrencler·When'•it is'otherWise bona fide. -'.·;: i,:. Lehna v: Mst. Th~kti'•(32 Punjl!b Rec~rd 1£92 •F.B:); 1:.al• Singh v. Roor Singh (55 P.L;Rc !68 'at 172).;' Mulla's :Hindu Law, 11th Edition, page 211; Ratt;.'gan's Digest, ·of Customaiy .I-,tiw Para. P(2) Ieferred tp,-. .,, , .,. 1 )1 11 ,, ..... :. , ,_., ... , CIVIL·· APPEM;ATF; ,.JURISDICTION·.: .Civ,iL-Appeal. No, 174-of-1952,. ,,, .. ,,y,._ "'" .. · .. ,.,; •. •-: .. ,,,,._., .,_ App~ir 'frorii the'' Judgme'nt" 'lnd 'Decree · dated ihe 27th fu'ne;· 1950; 'of 'ihe"·High Court of-Judicature of Patia!a -an~~· East' Pupjah-'St~tes "Union 'in S~i:ond -Appeal No. 219. 'of'1949-)0. agi\nst' t)l:e Judgment . and·'~Decree <lated the 21st 'Septe!+iber; i949,' of tht COurf of' the "Addi- tion~i 'D,lstriet' Judge; Bh'a'tirida, in' 'Appeal Nc:i. '61 of 1948, ar1£foit 'fr<Jin the' Judgfl)eiit 'a(id Decree· dated ·'the 10th 'Ai.igus~' '1948; 1' '1:)£' the Oiurt ''ot''tli'e s\ib;JU'dg~ II Class, Mansa, in Case No. 134 of 1947. . , . '' · · · ' ·--- -- - -'4.- • - ~. ·~ S.C.R. SUPRK\IE COURT REPORTS 87 GopalSin(jh and Sardar Singh for the appellants. Achhru Ram (K. L. Mehta, with him) for the respondent. 195!. April 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BosE J. -,The plaintiffs-appeal. They claim to be the presumptive reversioners to one Harnam Singh who owned the property in dispute. On 2nd November, 1914, after Harnam Singh's death, his daughti;r Mst. Biro, the second defendant, gifted the plaint proper- ties to her sons who have been grouped together as the first defendant. The plaintiffs contend that _the pro- perty is ancestral and that the daughter got only a life estate, so they sue for a declaration that the gift will not affect their reversionary rights. The defendants rely on custom: They state that, according to the customary law which governs the par- ties, collaterals beyond the fifth degree are not heirs in the presence of a daughter and her line. The plaintiffs, they say, are collaterals of the seventh degree, there- fore they cannot displace the daughter. They also state that the property was not ancestral and so the plaint- iffs cannot challenge the daugh_ter's alienation. The third line of defence related to a portion of the property which is not in aispute before us. . . The property in suit consisted of three items: (1) 253 bighas of Khas Jand; (2) a. half share in 3 bighas 19 biswa.s; and (3) a share in certain shamlat property.· The defendants say that Harnam Singh gifted 123 big has of the Khas land to the second defendant: that thii· gift was absolute ·and so the plaintiffs .cannot get that portion of the property in any event. · The trial Judge held, on the admission of the plaint- iffs' counsel, that the l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.