LexJAGAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus DHANWANTI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 2 S.C.R. 303 JAGAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. DHANWANTI & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2467 of 2005) JANUARY 19, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 A B - s. 169 - Bequest 'by a bhumidhar - Bhumidhar with transferable rights imposing a restriction on the rights of a C legatee by limiting the bequest to the life time of legatee - Permissibility of, u/s. 169(1) - Held: Sub-section (1) of Section 169 permits a bhumidhar to bequeath his holding or any part thereof by making a Will - Under the Will, he can create a restricted interest in favour of legatee and the same is D permissible u/s. 169 (1). Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 14 - Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property - Bhumidhar bequeathing his land by way of Will uls. 169(1) of the 1951 E Act in favour of female hindu and creating a restricted estate - Permissibility of, in view of s. 14(2) - Held: Bequest made uls. 169 (1) in favour of a female Hindu, if it is a restricted one, shall remain a restricted one un der sub-section (2) of s. 14, since the same would be governed by the terms of the Will - F On facts, bhumidhar bequeathed his land by way of Will in favour of female hindu (his wife); creating a restricted estate - Wife planning to sell the land - Suit filed seeking permanent injunction against the female hindu from selling the land - Courts below held that the bequest by bhumidhar in favour of female hindu was not a restricted one and dismissed the G suit - Judgment passed by civil judge and as upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court bad in law and set aside - Declaration passed that the female hindu had no right to sell the disputed parcel of land - Suit decreed to the 303 H 304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. 1 A said extent - U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 - s. 169. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 52 - Doctrine of '/is pendens' - Held: Pendency of a suit or a proceeding shall B be deemed to continue until the suit or a proceeding is disposed of by final decree or order, and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained or has become unobtainable by reason of tf}e expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any C law for the time being in force - On facts, appellant sought permanent injunction against respondent No. 1 from selling the land either to respondent No. 2 or otherwise - Suit dismissed by the civil judge, Additional District Judge as also High Court - Execution of sale at a time when the second o appeal had not been filed but which came to be filed afterwards within the period of limitation - Thus, the case would be covered uls. 52 - That sale had not taken place - Declaration passed that respondent No. 1 had no right to sell the disputed parcel of land - As regards the claim of the E applicant that the said parcel of land was sold to her by the first respondent subsequently before filing of the Second Appeal, the appellant filed second suit seeking setting aside of the sale in favour of the applicant and the same was dismissed for default - Legal representatives of the appellant F directed to apply to that court for appropriate orders - Subsequent developments. 'US' was the owner of certain parcels of bhumidhari lands covered under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. "US' by way of a G registered Will, bequeathed his entire property in favour of appellant as an exclusive owner. However, as regards plot 'A'. he created a restricted estate in favour of his wife- respondent No. 1. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 planned to dispose of property 'A'. The appellant filed a H suit for permanent injunction to restrain respondent No. JAGAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 305 DHANWANTI & ANR. 1 from disposing of the property. The civil judge A dismissed the suit holding that the right of respondent No. 1 was not restricted under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Both the Additional District Judge and the High Court upheld the order passed by the civil judge. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. B The question which arose for consideration in this appeal were whether Section 169 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, prohibits a bhumidhar with transferable rights from imposing a restriction
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.