Parshotam
Singh Vs. Harbans Kaur & Anr [1996] INSC 1447 (18 November 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
G.B. Pattanaik
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandigarh, made on July 26, 1995 in RSA No. 575/95.
The
admitted position is that one Mukhtiar Singh was the original owner of the
property. He died in 1966 leaving behind him was his son Harsukhjit Singh and
his widow Pritam Kaur. Pritam Kaur died in 1971. Harsukhjit Singh has two sons,
viz, Parshotam Singh and Lakhmir Singh . The respondents are the widow and sons
of Lakhmir Singh and the appellants are the heirs of Parshotam Singh. The
appellant- plaintiff had filed a suit for joint possession and declaration that
they are entitled to half the share in the property succeeded by Harsukhjit
Singh. The trial Court decreed the suit. But, on appeal, it was reversed. The
High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.
On the
facts and circumstances, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the
appeal on the ground of mere delay. The High Court would have gone into the
question of the right to the succession of the property. It is seen that the
appellate Court had recorded a finding of fact that Harsukhjit Singh had
succeeded to not only the property of his grandfather but also a part of the
property heed by his mother, Pritam Kaur. Under these circumstances, the
property which he inherited from his mother, Pritam Kaur would be his
self-acquired property. But the property succeeded through his grand-father, Bakhtawar
Singh would assume the character of joint property. The appellate Court had
recorded a finding that since Harsukhjit Singh had blended his private property
and the joint family property, it assumed the character of self-acquired
property. Therefore, it is not partible between the appellants and the
respondents. The view taken by the appellate Court is clearly wrong in law.
Though
Harsukhjit Singh had blended the joint family property with his private
property inherited from his mother, the joint family property still remains to
be the joint family property until it is divided between the heirs of Harsukhjit
Singh. The appellant being the heirs of the father of the respondent Parshotam
Singh, they are entitled to the half share in the property succeeded by Harsukhjit
Singh from his grant-father and the rest of the half share would go to the
respondents.
The
appeal is, therefore, allowed. The orders of the High Court and the District
Court stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court to pass final
decree in accordance with law. The decree of the trial Court stands restored. But,
in the circumstances, without costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2