KEHAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS & ORS. versus NACHITTAR KAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 986 · Decided: 20-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
KEHAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS & ORS.
v.
NACHITTAR KAUR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3264 of 2011)
AUGUST 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920: Dispute between
plaintiff-son, father and the defendants-purchaser of the suit land
from father – Suit for declaration that the sale deed in relation to
the suit land was not binding on the plaintiff and sale in question
was void and does not convey any right, title and interest in favour
of purchasers – Held: The sale deeds reflected the factum of family
debts – The plaintiff’s father, being a Karta of  the family, had every
right to sell the suit land belonging to family to discharge the debt
liability and spend some money to make improvement in agriculture
land for the maintenance of his family – Once the factum of existence
of legal necessity stood proved, then, no coparcener (son) has a
right to challenge the sale made by the Karta of his family –  The
plaintiff being a son was one of the coparceners along with his
father – He had no right to challenge such sale in the light of
findings of legal necessity being recorded against him – It was more
so when the plaintiff failed to prove by any evidence that there was
no legal necessity for sale of the suit land or that the evidence
adduced by the defendants to prove the factum of existence of legal
necessity was either insufficient or irrelevant or no evidence at all –
Suit liable to be dismissed – Hindu law – Right of Karta to sell
family property.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:   It came in evidence that firstly, the family owed
two debts and secondly, the family also needed money to make
improvement in agriculture land belonging to the family.  The
plaintiff’s father, being a Karta of  the family, had every right to
sell the suit land belonging to family to discharge the debt liability
and spend some money to make improvement in agriculture land
for the maintenance of his family. These facts were also mentioned
986
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 986
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
in the sale deed.  A case of legal necessity for sale of ancestral
property by the Karta was, therefore, made out on facts. In other
words, the defendants were able to discharge the burden that lay
on them to prove the existence of legal necessity for sale of suit
land to defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendants thus satisfied the
test laid down in Hindu law as explained by Mulla in Article 254
(2) read with Article 241 (a) and (g). The reasoning and the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court is just and proper. [Paras
26, 27, 29]  [993-C-F; 994-A]
Charan Singh v. Gehl Singh, 1974 PLR 125; Darshan
Singh v. Ram Pal Singh & Anr., AIR 1991 SC 1654:
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 212 – referred to
Hindu law by Mulla (Article 254)  – referred to
Case Law Reference
1974 PLR 125
referred to
Para 14
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 212
referred to
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3264
of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2006 of the High Court
of  Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.
1734 of 1968
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Gagan Gupta, Abhishek Atrey, P. N. Puri,
Abhishek Puri, Ms. Reeta Dewan Puri, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the
legal representatives of the original plaintiff  against the final judgment
and order dated 20.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1734 of 1968 whereby the High
Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents(defendants) and
dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff.
2. In order to appreciate the factual and legal controversy involved
in the appeal, it is necessary to state the facts in detail infra.
3. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original
plaintiff whereas the respondents are the legal representatives of the
original defendants, who were brought on record during the pendency of
this litigation consequent upon the death of both plaintiff and the
defendants.
KEHAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS & ORS. v. NACHITTAR KAUR
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
4.
The dispute in this appeal is between the son, father and the
purchasers of the suit land from father. It relates to a land measuring
around 164 Kanals 1 Marla entered in rectangle No.46 Killa Nos. 8/1,
19/2, 21/2, 22/2, 23, 24 and rectangle No.52, Killa Nos. 1/
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.