MAKTUL versus MST. MANBHARI & OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1099 · Decided: 23-05-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
' 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
io99 
the appellant is not liable to render accounts for the 
excess receipts. 
.. No other point is raised before us. In the result, 
the decree of the High Court is set aside and that of 
the Subordinate Judge is restored. The appellant will 
have his costs throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
MAKTUL 
v. 
Mst. MANBHARI & OTHERS 
(GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and SuBBA' · 
RAO JJ.) 
' 
Customary Law-Inheritence-Hindu in Punjab succeeding to 
maternal grandfather's estate-Such proterty, if ancestral qua /Jis 
sons-Stare decisis-Rule, when inapplicable. 
Under the customary law of the ·Punjab property inht!~ited 
by a Hindu male from his maternal grandfather is not .. an~estral 
property qua his sons. 
· 
· ·.. 
·. 
:· 
Narotam Chand v. Mst. Durga Devi, I. L. R. (1950) Punj. r, 
approved. 
· · 
· 
Lelina v. Musammat Thakri, (1895) 30 P. R. 124 and Musam-
mat Attar Kaur v. Nikkoo, (1924) I. L. R. 5 Lah. 356, not 
approved. 
The rule of stare. decisis is not an inflexible rule ,and is' l.n-
app1icable where the decision is clearly erroneous and· wht!n its 
r.evei;sal does uot . shake any titles .,er .contracts ·or altei the 
general course .of dealing. 
., , ,., 
', 
CrvIL APPELLATE JU,RI8DICTI0N! Civ,il Appeal No; 
150.of 1955. . . . 
.; . . .. . 
· '. 
,:. 
· 'AJl:peal froiri'tll.e judgment and decr.eedateq A;ugust 
20, 1952; ·of'th'e Puhjab High Court,'.in R'egular ll'irst· 
~t>peal Ni?:.·1010£}~49 arisin.~,' ~~t :?f, the ·judgment 
. ; ~J • 
140·' 
Mahant 
Rctmdhan Puri 
v. 
Bankey 
Bihari Saran 
Subba Rao ]. 
May 23. 
• 
Jl.!Jaktul 
v. 
Manbhari 
• 
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
and decree dated March 22, 1948, of the Court of the 
Sub-Judge 1st Class, Panipat, in Suit No. 361 of 1947. 
Dr. J. N. Banerjee and K. L. Mehta, for the appel-· 
lant. 
Gopal Singh, for respondents Nos. 1 to 9. 
1958. May 23. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Gaj.ndragadkar J. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-If a Hindu governed by the 
customary law prevailing in the Punjab succeeds to 
his maternal grandfather's estate, is the property in 
his hands ancestral property qua his own sons ? This 
is the short and interesting question of law which 
arises in this appeal. The appellant is the son of 
Sarup, respondent 10. 
On the death of his mother 
Musammat Rajo, respondent 10 inherited the suit pro-
perties from his maternal grandfather Moti. On 
March 22, 1927, he executed a registered mortgage 
deed in respect of the said properties in favour of 
Shibba the ancestor of respondents 1 to 9 for Rs. 5,000. 
Subsequently, on April 12, 1929, he sold the equity of 
redemption to the said mortgagee Shibba for Rs. 11,000. 
In Suit No. 145 of 1946 filed by the appellant in the 
court of the Sub-Judge, Panipat, from which the pre-
sent appeal arises, the appellant had· claimed a decla-
ration that the two transactions of mortgage and sale 
in question did not bind his own reversionary rights, 
because the impugned transactions were without 
consideration and were not supported by any legal 
necessity. His allegation was that his fi£mily was 
governed by the custom prevailing in the Punjab and, 
under this custom, the property in suit was ancestral 
property and he was entitled to challenge its aliena-
tion by his father respondent 10. Respondents 1 to 9 
disputed the appellant's right to bring the present 
suit and urged that the alienations by respondent 10 
were for consideration and for legal necessity. It was, 
however, common ground that respondent 10 and the 
·appellant were governed by the custom prevailing in 
• 
the Punjab. The learned trial judge held that the 
property in dispute was ancestral qua the appellant 
• 
• 
• 
\ 
• 
" ' 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
not 
and that the impugned alienations were not effected 
for consideration or for legal necessity. He, however, 
held that the appellant was not born at the time when 
the mortgage deed in question was executed and so he 
was not entitled to challenge it. In the result the 
Maktul 
v. 
Manbhari 
appellant was given a declaration that the sale in dis- Gajendragadkar J. 
pute did not bind the appellant's reversionary rights in 
the property after the death of respondent 10. 
The 
appellant's claim in regard to the mortgage was 
dismissed. Respondents 1 to 9 went in appeal against 
this decree to the District Judge at Karnal and con-
tended that the suit had abated in the trial court as a 
result of the death of one of the defendants pending 

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