BHAGAT SINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH
LAWS(SC)-1961-3-57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
March 08,1961
BHAGAT SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
JASWANT SINGH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SHIVAPPA KARBASAPPA KARADLGUDDA VS. HANUMANTHAPPA KARIBASAPPA KARADIGUDDA [LAWS(KAR)-1990-8-46] [DISTINGUISHED]DEOCHAND SARDA VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-1998-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA DUTTA VS. KESHAB CHANDRA SIDHYA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
NAJARKHAN KALUBAVA VS. KESARKHAN KAYAMKHAN [LAWS(GJH)-1967-3-2] [REFERRED]
SADASHIV MAHADEORAO POKLE VS. MAHESH BABAN POKLE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-5-46] [REFERRED TO]
FRANCIS BENNADIC D SOUZA VS. ANDREW ALIAS JAIRSON [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
IBRAHIMKUTTY KOYAKUTTY VS. ABDUL RAHUMANKUNJU IBRAHIMKUTTY [LAWS(KER)-1992-8-45] [REFERRESD TO]
SECTION OFFICER HESCOM LTD VS. PARAWWA [LAWS(KAR)-2011-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER KALI BAI VS. JAGDISH SINGH THAKUR [LAWS(SC)-1977-10-12] [RELIED ON]
JAGDISH KHATTAR VS. RAM KISHAN [LAWS(P&H)-1971-2-58] [REFERRED]
LALLAN PRASAD VS. RAM KISHUN PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-1999-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
ALI HASAN VS. MATIULLAH [LAWS(ALL)-1987-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
PADAM CHAND VS. LAKSHMI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-322] [REFERRED TO]
BANAMALI DEKA VS. UPENDRA NATH DAS [LAWS(GAU)-1994-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP DUTTA BHOWMIK VS. MIRA DUTTA BHOWMIK [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
THE SECTION OFFICER, HESCOM LTD. & ORS. VS. SMT. PARAWWA & OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2011-4-278] [REFERRED TO]
ANDALAMMAL VS. RAJESWARI VEDACHALAM [LAWS(MAD)-1984-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
SANGIA LAL NEGI VS. STATE OF H P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-281] [REFERRED TO]
ARUMUGAM VS. NATARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED SAGEER VS. PRAKASH THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2005-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
SARAMMA PUNNEN VS. VARKEY [LAWS(KER)-1983-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
PARITOSH NASKAR VS. SITAL MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2002-4-97] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(GJH)-1985-8-24] [REFERERED]
RITA FLORENCE VS. SIVAGAMI ACHI [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-314] [REFERRED TO]
HARRIS VS. SELVARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2022-8-214] [REFERRED TO]
AZAD SINGH AND OTHERS VS. TARIF SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-336] [REFERRED TO]
K PATRA VS. GHANASHYAM DAS (RUIDAS) & ANR [LAWS(NCD)-2015-8-140] [REFERRED]
PURAN CHAND VS. JAI GOPAL [LAWS(P&H)-2008-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAJGOPAL VS. KISHAN GOPAL [LAWS(SC)-2003-9-115] [REFERRED]
BANKE RAM VS. SARASTI DEVI [LAWS(P&H)-1976-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
SHIB SANKAR DEY VS. SABITRI DEBI SARAFF [LAWS(CAL)-1978-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH MOTOR CAR COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. SEWAK SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST [LAWS(P&H)-2003-7-123] [REFERRED TO]
A M AMBROSE VS. S JEYARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2011-10-93] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN VS. ISHWAR CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2013-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
KUNISETTI SAMBRAJYAM VS. SRIRAM CHENCHU [LAWS(APH)-2004-12-79] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJAIYAPPAN VS. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1987-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
PALODE RAVI VS. MANGODE RADHAKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2003-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER DHINGRA VS. BHIM SAIN ARORA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
KANGALU PADHAN VS. DHANESWAR MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-1981-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VS. MANAGER H M T LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2001-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SANGIA LAL NEGI VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
SUBBIAH NADAR VS. NALLAPERUMAL PILLAI [LAWS(MAD)-1973-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. MAHENDRA DADHA [LAWS(MAD)-1982-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
TIRATH RAM VS. MOHAN LAL [LAWS(P&H)-1996-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
HAJARKAN KALUBAVA VS. KESARKHAN KAYAMKHAN [LAWS(GJH)-1967-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
Kusumchand VS. Kanhaiyalal [LAWS(RAJ)-1973-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHAN BANSILAL VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BIKANER [LAWS(RAJ)-1974-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
ROSILY MATHEW VS. JOSEPH [LAWS(KER)-1986-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
ANDALAMMAL VS. RAJESWARI VEDACHALAM [LAWS(MAD)-1984-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGOBINDA VS. BRAJABANDHU MISRA [LAWS(ORI)-1986-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN CHANDRA BURMAN VS. DEEPAK BHARGAVA [LAWS(CAL)-1995-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
LRISJAN LAL VS. N K BASLAS [LAWS(DLH)-1972-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
AMITAVA RAKSHIT VS. PRARANTA DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2019-8-109] [REFERRED TO]
SAURASHTRA MAZOOR MAHAJAN SANGH RAJKOT VS. D M VIN [LAWS(GJH)-1972-12-5] [REFERRED]
CHANAN KAUR VS. KARTARI D [LAWS(P&H)-2004-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK VS. ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Raghubar Dayal, J. -
(1.)This appeal, by special leave, is by the defendants against the decree in a suit instituted by the respondent for recovery of possession over certain plots of land. The plaintiff-respondent alleged that the plots were owned and possessed by Kartar Singh who had adopted the respondent about two years before his death. The defendants, it is alleged, got mutation made over the land in suit collusively with the revenue officials and secured possession over them by successfully inducing the tenants to pay rent to them.
(2.)The defendants accepted the allegation that Karatar Singh owned and possessed the land in suit and further alleged:
"Kartar Singh deceased never adopted the plaintiff as his son; nor is this admitted that the plaintiff was the sister's son of Karatar Singh; nor yet was he ever taken in the lap in the presence of the Baradri; nor were any ceremonies of adoption performed; nor could the plaintiff according to the Riwaj-i-am of District Jullundur or Riwaj-i-am if Punjab State be adopted as son; and nor did Karatar Singh deceased ever treat him as his son."
On these pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Was the plaintiff validly adopted by Karatar Singh deceased and when
(ii) Is the land in suit ancestral qua the plaintiff
(iii) Relief
The Senior Sub-Judge dismissed the suit holding that no adoption of the plaintiff had taken place and that even if it had taken place, it was opposed to the general as well as the custom of Jullundur District. He did not decide the second issue in view of his finding on the first issue.
(3.)On appeal, the District Judge held that the plaintiff had been adopted as a son and appointed as an heir by Kartar Singh. He did not consider it necessary to decide whether the adoption was valid, as the properties left by Karatar Singh were not alleged to be ancestral and consequently the defendants had no right to contest any alienation or any appointment of an heir to such property in view of the provisions of S. 7 of The Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920 (Punjab Act II of 1920), hereinafter called the Act, which reads:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in S. 5, Punjab Laws Act, 1872, no person shall contest any alienation of non-ancestral immoveable property or any appointment of an heir to such property on the ground that such alienation or appointment is contrary to custom."
He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for possession.
(2.)The defendants accepted the allegation that Karatar Singh owned and possessed the land in suit and further alleged:
"Kartar Singh deceased never adopted the plaintiff as his son; nor is this admitted that the plaintiff was the sister's son of Karatar Singh; nor yet was he ever taken in the lap in the presence of the Baradri; nor were any ceremonies of adoption performed; nor could the plaintiff according to the Riwaj-i-am of District Jullundur or Riwaj-i-am if Punjab State be adopted as son; and nor did Karatar Singh deceased ever treat him as his son."
On these pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Was the plaintiff validly adopted by Karatar Singh deceased and when
(ii) Is the land in suit ancestral qua the plaintiff
(iii) Relief
The Senior Sub-Judge dismissed the suit holding that no adoption of the plaintiff had taken place and that even if it had taken place, it was opposed to the general as well as the custom of Jullundur District. He did not decide the second issue in view of his finding on the first issue.
(3.)On appeal, the District Judge held that the plaintiff had been adopted as a son and appointed as an heir by Kartar Singh. He did not consider it necessary to decide whether the adoption was valid, as the properties left by Karatar Singh were not alleged to be ancestral and consequently the defendants had no right to contest any alienation or any appointment of an heir to such property in view of the provisions of S. 7 of The Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920 (Punjab Act II of 1920), hereinafter called the Act, which reads:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in S. 5, Punjab Laws Act, 1872, no person shall contest any alienation of non-ancestral immoveable property or any appointment of an heir to such property on the ground that such alienation or appointment is contrary to custom."
He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for possession.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.