GURBACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS versus PURAN SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 176 · Decided: 06-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
I96' 
GURBACHAN SINGH AND OTHERS 
.... "-
March 6. 
Kapur }. 
II, 
PURAN SINGH AND OTHERS 
"(J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Hindu law-Ancestral property-Lands obtained in lieu of 
ancostral lands in consolidation proceedings -Area representing 
ancestral land, if ancestral. 
One 'M' executed a will bequeathing the property in dispute. 
A suit was brought for declaration, inter alia, that the will was 
ineffective and 'M' had no power to bequeath the land in dispute 
as it was ancestral qua the defendants. 
The question for decision was whether the portion of land 
which had fallen to the share of 'M' in consolidation proceedings 
in lieu of his share in land held by him was ancestral or not. 
Held, that where land had been consolidated and in lieu of 
ancestral lands and non-ancestral land a consolidated area was 
given to a proprietor, then ·such of the portion of the consoli-
dated area which corresponds to the area of land which was 
ancestral, will be ancestral land. 
Where the possession by the immediate common ancestor is 
not shown in the revenue records but that of a more remote 
direct ancestor is shown, and the history of the land gives no 
indication of its acquisition except by inheritance, the land 
would be ancestral. 
Attar Singh v. Thakar Singh, (1908) L.R. 35 I.A. 206, referr-
ed to. 
Haveldar Mihan Singh v. Piara Singh, (1946) 48 P.L.R. 536 
and Gurdev Singh v. Desaundhi, A.LR. 1948 E.P. 22, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
492 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated September 12, 1955, of the Punjab High 
Court, Chandigarh, in Regular Second Appeal No. 747 
of 1951. 
Achhru Ram and K. L. Mehta, for the appellants. 
I. M. Lal and Mohan Lal Aggarwal, for respondents 
Nos. 1 to 4. 
1961. March 6. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
KAPUR, J.-This appeal arises out of the judgment 
and order of the High Court of the Punjab reversing 
' 
.• 
.. , 
·~ 
.. 
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
177 
in second appeal the decree of the District Court and 
z96z 
thus dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration. In 
, -h-s· h 
d 
d 
d h 
, 
, 
. 
't , 
Gu>"ac an ing 
or er to un erstan t e quest10n rn controversy 1 
IS 
& Olhm 
necessary to set out the following pedigree: 
v. 
Milkhi 
J-luran Singh 
[ 
& Others 
I 
Gulab Singh 
(dead) 
I . 
Mangal Smgh 
(testator) 
I 
Harnam Singh 
,j 
Himmat Singh 
I 
I 
I 
Mehtab Singh 
I I 
I 
Lalu 
Shern 
(dead) 
(dead) 
I 
Sohel Singh 
(Plaintiff No. r) 
I 
Fattu 
Leekar (dead) 
I 
Nathu Singh 
I I 
I 
Waryam Singh 
(Plaintiff No. 2) 
. 
I 
. I 
I 
I 
I 
Karnail 
Ajaib 
Amar 
Shiv 
Puran 
Singh 
Singh 
Singh 
Singh 
Singh 
(deft. No. 3) (deft. No. 2) 
(deft. No. r) (Plff. No. 3) (deft. No. 4) 
On August 11, 1947 Mangal Singh executed a will 
bequeathing the property in dispute to Amar Singh 
defendant No. l. After the death of Mangal Singh 
on October 25, 194 7 the mutation of his estate was 
effected in the name of Amar Singh on April 10, 1948 
by mutation No. 733. 
The plaintiffs Sohel Singh, 
Waryam Singh and Shiv Singh brought a suit for dec-
laration that the will was ineffective against them and 
for possession of certain parcels of land mutated in 
the name of Amar Singh. The allegation was that 
the will was made under undue influence, coercion 
and fraud and that Mangal Singh had no power to 
make the will as the land in dispute was ancestral 
qua the defendants. These allegations were denied 
and requisite issues were raised. 
The suit was dis-
missed by the trial court holding that it was not prov. 
ed that the execution of the will was procured by the 
exercise of undue influence or coercion or fraud and 
that the land had not been proved to be ancestrai. 
23 
Kapur J. 
178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1962] 
r96r 
An appeal was taken against this decree to the Dis-
G b -h-
. 
trict Judge who held that out of 66 Kanals, 2 Marlas 
"' ;c 0~;,;,;ngh of land in dispute an area of 28 Kanals, 3 Mar las was 
v. 
ancestral as it was held by Himmat Singh, father of 
Pu•an Singh 
Mehtab Singh the common ancestor. The District 
& Others 
Judge also held that Mehtab Singh had predeceased 
Himmat Singh but of this there seems to be no proof. 
Kapu• f. 
On appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of the 
District Judge and restored that of the trial court and 
the appellants have come in appeal to this court by 
special leave. 
The sole question for decisi

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