LexROHIT CHAUHAN versus SURINDER SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 897 ROHIT CHAUHAN v, SURINDl;R SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.5475 of 2013) JULY 15_, 2013 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND ~- GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] HIND,/:! LAW: 'Cpparcenary property' - 'Coparcener' - Held: A B c · Copajcenary property means the property which consists of ancestral property and a coparcener would mean a person who shares equally with others in inheritance in the estate of common ancestor - So long, on partition, an ancestral 0 ·property remains in the hand of a single person, it t.as to be treated as a separate property and such a person shall be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his separate property and if a son is subsequently bom, the alienation made before the birth cannot be questioned - E But, the moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest in that and become a coparcener - Therefore, in the instant case, sale deeds and release deed executed by the father after the birth of his son, to the extent of the entire property are illegal, null and void. F The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration that the alienation of suit property, ~iz. 8 Kanals of land by sale deed executed by his father (defendant no. 2) on 19.05.2000 in favour of defendant nos. 3 to 5 and of 96 G Kanals of land by release deed dated 28.05.2004 in favour of defendant no. 1 was null and void in as much as the property under the release, deed was the ancestral property received by defendant no. 2 under a family 897 H 898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. A partition and the property under the sale deeds was purchased by him from the joint family funds. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decree holding that the property received by defendant no. 2 on partition lost the character of B coparcenary property and became the self-acquired property of defendant no. 2. Plaintiffs second appeal was dismissed in limine. Allowing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1.1 Coparcenary property means the property which consists of ancestral property and a coparcener would mean a person who shares equally with others in inheritance in the estate of common ancestor. Coparcenary is a narrower body than the Joint Hindu D family and before commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, only male members of the family used to acquire by birth an interest in the coparcenary property. A coparcener has no definite share in the coparcenary property but he has an undivided interest E in it and one has to bear in mind that it enlarges by deaths and diminishes by births in the family. It is not static. [Para 8) [905-C-E] 1.2 So long, on partition, an ancestral property remains in the hand of a single person, it has to be F treated as a separate property and such a person shall be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his separate property and if a son is subsequently born, the alienation made before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the moment a son is born, the G property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest in that and become a coparcener. [Para 8) [905-E-G] M. Yogendra v. Leelamma N. 2009 (12) SCR 38 = H (2009) 15 sec 184 - relied on. ROHIT CHAUHAN v. SURINDER SINGH & ORS. 899 Bhanwar Singh v. Puran, 2008 (2) SCR 775 = (2008) 3 A sec 87 - distinguished. 1.3 In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the property which defendant no. 2 got on partition was an ancestral property and till the birth of the plaintiff he 8 was sole surviving coparcener but the moment plaintiff was born, he got a share in the father's property and became a coparcener. In view of the settled legal position, therefore, after the birth the plaintiff, defendant no. 2 could have alienated the property only as Karta for le,gal necessity, which contingency did not arise in the instant C case. Therefore, the sale deeds and the release deed executed by defendant no. 2 to the extent of entire coparcenary property are illegal, null and void. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court as affirmed by the High Court is set aside and that of the trial D court restored. [Para 10 and 12) (906-G-H; 907-A-B, DJ Case Law Reference: 2009 (12) SCR 38 2008 (2) SCR 775 relied on distinguished Para 8 Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5475 of 2013.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.