MUNSHI SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus SMT. SOHAN BAI (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 13-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,, . A-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MUN~HI SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
\ 
_,,, 
v. 
, 
' \\. 
SMT. SOHAN BAI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
\ - . 
. 
. 
MARCH 13, 1989 
[G.L. OZA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
y-
·Hindu Succession Act-Section 14(1)-Residuary rights of Hindu 
widoW-:What are-Rights of reversioners to get as heirs of husband-
When arises . . 
·-----! ____ ~ 
One Hazari Singh died in November 1918 leaving behind his 
widow Smt. Mam Kaur and two daughters viz., Smt. Pan Bai and Smt. 
Sohan Bai. The widow inherited the agriculture properties or her ,Ir, 
husband. The present appeals have arisen out of the two suits filed by 
the two daughters aforesaid claiming their half share in the property. 
The circumstances that led to the filing orthe suits may be stated thus: 
Smt. Mam Kaur, the widow, adopted Ranjit Singh grand-son of 
Sanehi Singh and son ofLakhi Singh (one orthe collaterals) in 1944 and 
gifted all the lands to him inherited by her from her husband. Both the 
adoption as also the gift were made orally •. 
Munshi Singh and his brothers (reversions) filed a suit challeng- 1 
ing the validity both of the adoption of Ranjit Singh and the gift of the 
properties to him. 
By a decree of the Court both the adoption as also the gill in 
favour of Ranjit Singh were declared invalid and a declaration was+ 
granted in respect orthe gill so far as it affected the reversionary rights. 
Thereupon on 4th June, 1963; Smt, Mam Kaur sold away the 
entire property to Ranjit Singh & his brothers for Rs.50,000. Pan Bai, 
daughter_ of deceased hazari Singh and Munshi Singh and others 
(revisioners) filed suits claiming pre-emption rights to purchase the 
properties in question. By a decree of the Court it was held that Pan Bai 
has a superior right to purchase the property. Accordingly first prefer-
ence was granted in favour of Smt. Pan Bai to deposit the sale amount 
·and seek pre-emption failing.which her suit was to be dismissed and a r 
later date was given to Munshi Singh and others. Smt. Pan Bai did not 
deposit the amount with the result Munshi Singh & others deposited the 
amount and took possession of the properties and came to be substi-
iuted in the sale. 
1012 
! 
·-.t 
I 
:..· 
MUNSHI SINGH v. SMT. SOHAN BAI 
1013 
On the death of Mam Kaur in January, 1965, Smt. Sohan Bai (her 
2nd daughter) filed a suit for a decree for possession of half of the share 
on the plea that in view of the declaratory decree of 24. 7 .47, on the 
death of Smt. Mam Kaur, succession had to be traced to Hazari Singh 
i.e. her father. Smt. Pan Bai, also filed a suit for the same relief. The 
Trial Court decreed the suit filed by Smt. Sohan Bai but dismissed the 
suit filed by Smt. Pan Bai on the ground that as Smt. Pan Bai had filed a 
suit claiming on the basis of pre-emption earlier, she was estopped from 
disputing the validity of the sale made by Smt. Mam Kaur. 
On appeal the Additional District Judge maintained the decree 
passed in the suit of Smt. Sohan Bai and reversed the trial Court's 
Judgment in the suit filed by Smt. Pan Bai and held that both the 
daughters were entitled to succeed to half share each in the property. 
Against the order of the Additional District Judge, defendants in both 
the suits filed Regular Second Appeals in the High Court which were 
dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence these appeals. 
A 
B 
c 
Before this Court it was inter alia contended by the appellants that o 
in an earlier suit the adoption and the gift having been declared invalid, 
the donee who was the adopted son of Ranjit Singh was not left with any 
rights in the properties; on the other hand it was contended by the 
Respondents that no doubt adoption was declared invalid but so far as 
gift was concerned, it was declared invalid in a suit for declaration by 
reversioners to the limited extent that this gift will not affect the rights 
E 
of the reversioners thereby meaning that so far as the life estate of Smt. 
Mam Kaur was concerned, it was transferred by the gift deed but the 
right of the reversioners to succeed on the deaih of Smt. Mam Kaur was 
protected as it was declared that this gift will not affect the rights of the 
reversioners. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: The gift will not affect the rights of the reversioners on 
the death of Smt. Mam Kaur but it could not be disputed that so far as 
Smt. Mam Kaur during her life time is concerned, as she had gifted 
away the property to Ranjit Singh and delivered possession, she had
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.