9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Prithvi Singh in favour of the appellants. Para 2.6 of the impugned reads as under:- "2.6 Defendants are alleged to have changed their attitude after the death of late Raghuvinder Singh and defendants no. 2 and 3 having prevailed upon defendant no. 1 Sh. Prithvi Singh are alleged to have obtained/ manipulated following sale deeds in their favour with malafide intention to deprive the plaintiffs of their right in the ancestral land :- (1) Sale deed dated 11.01.2005 in respect of Plot No. 258, measuring 1015 sq. yards known as A Block, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi for sale consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/-registered as Document No. 423 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1760 on Pages no. 95-99; (2) Sale deed dated 13.01.2005 in respect of Khasra No. 208/2(0-4) and 209(7-2) (kayami) situated in Village Mitraon, Delhi for sale consideration of Rs. 24,00,000/- registered as Document No. 548 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1768 on Pages 28-40. (3) Sale deed dated 20.01.2005 in respect of Plot measuring 600 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 115 min. situated in old Lal Dora of village Mitraon, Delhi for sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- registered as Document No. 876 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1782 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 956 makes the properties inherited not as self-acquired properties but as HUF properties, whereas inheritance by a person of a property from his parental ancestors after the year 1956 makes the inherited property as a self-acquired property of the inheritor and not as an HUF property vide Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204. This aspect has been considered by this Court in detail by reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen and Others (supra) and Yudhishter (supra) in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. Dhani Ram and Others, 227 (2016) DLT 217. This aspect has been exhaustively and rightly dealt with by the trial court while deciding issue no.4 and the relevant observations of the trial court in this regard read as under:- "18. Issue No. (iv) Whether the suit properties are ancestral properties in the hand of defendant no. 1? ... OPP 18.1 Advocate Sh. R. K. Dahiya for defendant has vehemently argued by insisting that property inherited by defendant Sh. Prithvi Singh from his father constitutes his selfacquired property in which his children did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 18.4 Plaintiff's counsel in support of his contention, has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Gaya Din (D) through LRs & Ors. vs. Hanuman Prasad (D) through LRs & Ors." Appeal (Civil) 191 of 1991 decided on 27.11.2000 and "Kavita & Anr. vs. Samunder Singh & Ors." RFA 56/2011 decided on 31.07.2013. 18.5 Relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gaya Din's case (Supra) is reproduced below for reference:" It is a wellsettled principle of Hindu Law that the joint and undivided family is the normal condition of Hindu society but it is not a juristic person as such it cannot hold any property independent of the members. On a perusal of the aforementioned judgment of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, we approve the following proposition laid down by it : That the members of the joint family collectively own the coparcenary property. Each member has an interest in such property, though his interest becomes definite on partition. Till then, it is an undivided interest. The view expressed in Mahabir Singh and the other cases mentioned above, that the members were not the tenants of the holding because they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neal descendant had succeeded to the lands as per The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Naturally, Sh. Raghuvinder Singh being born on 02.02.1951 before enactment of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 became coparcener with Sh. Prithvi Singh and defendant Sh. Prithvi Singh recorded as Bhumidhar in revenue records after enactment of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was not holding the land as sole owner but on behalf of every member of joint family and for the benefit of all his male descendants (heirs). 18.9 FINDING :-Defendant no. 1 Sh. Prithvi Singh being only male descendant of late Sh. Ram Singh had inherited the ancestral property in the year 1943 for the benefit of his own male heirs subject to the condition that his own male progeny would also have also a share in it by birth and not as his self acquired property. Issue No. (iv) is therefore decided in favour of plaintiffs." 6. I completely agree with the aforesaid reasoning and conclusion of the trial court because it is now settled law in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhishter (supra) that inheritance by a person of a property from his parental ancestors before the year 1956 makes t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selfacquired property of the karta or the coparcener only and simply because the land is bhumidari land under the DLR Act. In fact, in my opinion, this argument raised on behalf of the appellants/defendant nos. 2 and 3 is preposterous to say the least because it is not the subject matter of the DLR Act to convert the HUF property into self-acquired property simply because the owner of lessee rights is under the DLR Act a bhumidar. The only object of the DLR Act was to do away the intermediary who was the private owner/landlord and the private owner/landlord, is now substituted by the government/State, with the private owner/landlord or the existing lessee of a property (in certain circumstances) of the private landlord, became the bhumidars under the DLR Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following conclusions emerge:- (i) The predecessor-in-interest Sh. Ram Singh being the father of Sh. Prithvi Singh died in the year 1943, and therefore, Sh. Prithvi Singh inherited the land of Sh. Ram Singh as an HUF property in his hands. (ii) The land being HUF property in the hands of Sh. Prithvi Singh, Sh. Prithvi Singh could only sell the same for legal necessity or benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
