LexSHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH versus MST. PHOOL KUMARI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH v. MST. PHOOL KUMARI & ORS. March .24, 1971 [J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) Hindu Law-Family arrangeme11t-Principles for deciding wh<'lher a doc111nent is jan1ily arrange111ent. Adverse possession-When established. Raj Kun1ar, the common ancestor of the parties had four sons-Lalji Singh, Amar Singh, Ramji Singh and Raghunandan Singh. Amar Singh had three sons, namely, Sonadhari. Girwardhari and Nankhu father of present appellant. In 1898 Amar Singh purchased the land on which the house in dispute stood from his own funds but in the name of his brother Lalji Singh. Nankhu was taken in adoption by Ramji Singh. Shortly thereafter, in 1915, a document .Ex. l was executed between Raj Kumar's descendants. In it the claim of Nankhu to a half share in the house in dispute \\'as recognised. Tn 1949, Nankhu and the appellant filed the instant suit for a declaration of their half share in the house in dispute. The defendants (present respondents) were the branches of Sonadhari and Girwardhari. The suit Vias resisted inter alia on the following grounds: (i) that Ex. I was not a family arrangement but only a deed of relinquish- ment; and therefore Nankhu who had no anterior title to the house in dispute did nOt acquire any interest in it by virtue of Ex. I: (ii) that even if he had an interest in the house he lost it by reason of adverse posses- sion by the respondent. The trial court decreed the suit. The decree was upheld by the Single Judge of the High Court. The Division Benoh however decided both the points of dispute in favour of the respondents. It held that there was no dispute or conflict of interest between the branches of Amar Singh and Ramji Singh, and that Amar Singh and Nankhu had acted in concert in the execution of Ex. I which was therefore not a family arrangerr,ent. It upheld the claim of the respondents that Nankhu and the appelb.nt had lost title to the house by the adverse possession of the respondentli. The visits of Nankhu and hi;; wife to the house were he!d by the Division Bench to be 'in the nature of visits of guests of the defen- dants'. In appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High Court. HELD: (i) The arrangenient under challenge has to be considered as a whole for ascertaining v.·hether it was made to allay disputes, existing or apprehended, in the interest of harmony in the family or the preser- vation of property. lt is not necessary that there must exist a dispute actual or possible in the future, in respect of each and every item of pro- perty among all members arraigned one against the other. It v.·ould be suffi. cient if it is shown that there were actual or possible claims and counter- claims by parties in settlement whereof the arrangement as a whole had been arrived at, thereby ackDO\vledging title in one to whom a particular property falls on the assumption (not actual existence in law) that he had an antelior title therein. [191 F-GJ Pullaiah v. Narasilnluun, A.LR. 1966 S. C. 1837, Sahu Madho Das v. M11kund Ranr, [1955] 2 S.C·.R. :?1 and Rani Mewa Kuwar v. Rani Hulas Kuwar. (1873-74) LR. l I.A. 157 at 166, applied. 18 l A B c D E F G H 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] surr. s.c.&. B c D E G Williams v. Williams, (1867) 2 Ch. A. 294, referred to. An examination of the terms of Ex. 1 showed that it was iocorm:I I<> assume, as the High Court did, that in the disputes amongst the different branches of the family, Nankhu and Amar Singh were actina in~. or that there was no conflict of ioterest among them. The parties to Ex. 1 arrived at a settlement in view of claims and cross claims by 10n.e aa;ain'it the others. Taken as a whole and in the light of the recitals and tho statements in the operative part of the document indicating conflict amongst the members of the family, the document represented an arrangement bona fide entered into, for settling existing or at any rate apprehended disputes, and therefore, satisfied the tests of a family arrangement laid down in the decisions of th~ Court. In this view Nankhu must be said to have ac~ quired a half share in the house in dispute under Ex. I. [193 H, 194 E-G] (ii) Adverse posses.sion has to have characteristics of adequacy, conti~ nuity and exclusiveness. The onus to establish these characteristics is on the adverse possessors. Accordingly, if a holder of title proves that be too had been exercising during the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.