HARI CHAND ROACH versus HEM CHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1125 · Decided: 28-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 1125 
HARi CHAND ROACH 
V. 
HEM CHAND AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2002) 
OCTOBER 28, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Partition - Hindu joint family property - Family settlement 
A 
B 
- Widow inheriting 1!3rd undivided share of her deceased c 
husband in two joint family properties - Family arrangement 
between widow and her brothers-in-law - Widow relinquishing 
her share and instead taking shares of her brothers-in-law -
Widow and her daughter selling the said property - Sale deed 
D 
- Challenge to, by brothers-in-law - Held( By virtue of the 
family arrangement, widow and her daughter became absolute 
owner of the said property and had full right to dispose of the 
said property - It cannot be said that they had no pre-existing 
right in the said land - Property was sold for consideration 
E 
and the sale was valid - Hindu Law. 
The three brothers - 'HR', 'K' and 'D" inherited an 
undivided share in two joint family properties at places 
'CN' and 'CK'. 'HR' expired and his wife 'J' inherited 113rd 
F 
of the undivided shares of 'HR' at places 'CN' and 'CK'. 
'J' gifted part of the properties at place 'CN' in favour of 
her daughter's son. Thereafter, 'J' entered into a family 
arrangement with her brothers-in-law-'K' and 'D'. In terms 
thereof, she relinquished her share at place 'CK' and 
instead took shares of 'K' and 'D' in properties at place 
'CN'. 'J' and 'DB'-daughter of 'J' then sold certain 
1125 
G 
H 
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A properties to the appellant. 'K' and 'D' filed a suit for 
possession and declaration that the sale deed was void. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. In appeal, the order 
passed by the trial court was upheld. In the second 
8 appeal, the Single Judge of the High Court held that 'J' 
and 'DB' had no pre-existing right in the said land. 
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is clear from all the documents and 
pleadings that because of the family arrangement, 'J' and 
'DB' became the absolute owners of the land at placa. 
'CN', measuring 36 Big has and 6 Biswas. They later on · 
D relinquished their undivided shares in 'CK' measuring 103 
Big has and 3 Biswas. The Single Judge of the High Court 
decided the second appeal preferred against the 
judgment of the District Judge on basis of the pleadings 
and the documents on record. But unfortunately the 
E Single Judge observed that 'J' and 'DB' had no pre-
existing right in the land in dispute and because of the 
said finding the Single Judge arrived at absolutely wrong 
conclusion. Thus, the said finding is set aside. [Para 13, 
F 17] [1134-A; 1135-G-H] 
1.2 'J' inherited the estate of her husband 'HR' on his 
death in the year 1954. She had undivided shares at place 
'CN' and at place 'CK'. By a family arrangement, 'J' 
G relinquished her share at place 'CK' and instead, she took 
the share of her brothers-in-law 'K' and 'D' at place 'CN'. 
Thus, 'J' and 'D' became full owner of the land at place 
'CN' and, consequently, had full right to dispose of the 
H 
HARi CHAND ROACH v. HEM CHAND AND ORS. 1127 
said property. They had sold the property at place 'CN' 
A 
to the appellant. The property was sold for consideration 
and in good faith. Thus, on consideration of the totality 
of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned 
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is 
set aside. [Paras 18 and 19] [1136-A-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
432 of 2002. 
B 
c 
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.7.2000 of the High 
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Second Appeal 
R.S.A.No. 75 of 1993. 
C.U. Singh, Dharmesh Misra, Tara V. Ganju, Akansha, 
D 
Ritesh Sharma (for Pradeep Kumar Bakshi) for the Appellant. 
Ashok Kumar Chhabra, Alok Prakash (for Madhu 
Moolchandani) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal emanates from 
E 
the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla 
delivered on 26th July, 2000 in Regular Second Appeal No.75 
F 
of 1.993. 
2 .. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal 
are recapitulated as under. 
3. In order to properly comprehend the inter se relationship 
of the parties, the Genealogycal family tree is reproduced 
herein. 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 OJ 12 S.C.R. 
HARi RAM 
(Died 1954) 
(Living in Soonthi 
till death) 
I 
I 
JAMN
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.