DARSHAN SINGH Vs. GUJJAR SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-157
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
January 08,2002
DARSHAN SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
GUJJAR SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BASHIR AHMAD V. PARSHOTAM [REFERRED]SARDAR AMAR SINGH V. SARDAMI SHIV DATT KAUR [REFERRED]
VIDYA MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY REGD VS. MALLESWARAM SANGEETHA SABHA [REFERRED]
LAL CHAND MARWARI VS. RAMRUP GIR [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SYED ALLABAKSH VS. ZAINAB BI [LAWS(APH)-2002-7-51] [REFERRED TO]GAYA PRASAD VS. NATHU SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-143] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-463] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS. CHHAMTA GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-295] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. GANDHI SMARAK NIDHI VS. AZIZ MIAN [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-71] [REFERRED TO]
NANJAMMA VS. AKKAYAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-285] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ALI VS. JAGADISH KAKITA [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-10] [REFERRED]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. SHANTIDEVI [LAWS(MPH)-2008-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA SANKAR VS. OM PRAKASH LIKKDHARI [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-127] [REFERRED TO]
SUDAMA JI VS. CHHOTEY LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-355] [REFERRED TO]
SUDARSHAN SHAW VS. SUBHAS SHAW [LAWS(CAL)-2005-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
Pappayammal VS. Palanisamy [LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-206] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. PARAMJIT KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-329] [REFERRED]
GOVIND RAO VS. JOINT COLECTOR ADILABAD [LAWS(APH)-2010-8-111] [REFERRED TO]
LATOOREE VS. SHYAM LAL (SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY LRS.) [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-318] [REFERRED TO]
KALIPADA KIRTAN VS. BIJOY BAG [LAWS(CAL)-2008-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP LALWANI VS. SUNITA LALWANI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-182] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL VS. RANJANBEN [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-1485] [REFERRED TO]
LUNJA S/O JUDUM KUMHAR VS. BUGAD D/O LATE BHIKHU [LAWS(CHH)-2019-1-173] [REFERRED TO]
USHA DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
GURU CHARAN PATNAIK VS. THE CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER AND 5 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-122] [REFERRED TO]
HASSAN BHAT VS. AHMAD KHANDAY AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2005-9-33] [REFERRED]
SAMIYAPPA GOUNDER VS. PALANISAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-223] [REFERRED TO]
CHIRONJI BAI AND ORS. VS. NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT KAUR VS. JAGDEEP SINGH RIKHY [LAWS(DLH)-2004-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
TULAN RAM JANGU AND ANOTHER VS. BALDEV RAM SUKHNATH RAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2016-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
LALLAN SINGH VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-329] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHOO VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FAIZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-162] [REFERRED TO]
IRSHAD AHMAD VS. GARIB DAS (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-286] [REFERRED TO]
RATHINA KUMARI VS. A. GOVINDASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDAMURTHY JAYARAMI REDDY VS. GODI JAYA RAMI REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
B.R. PATIL VS. TULSA Y. SAWKAR [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-124] [REFERRED TO]
DAULAT SINGH VS. DILBAGH SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
SOBRAN SINGH VS. RAJENDRA SINGH @ PATELBABU [LAWS(MPH)-2013-10-307] [REFERRED]
RAMKALI VS. MURITKUMARI [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUND VS. SMT. SUKLAKSHANA BOKARE AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
TORALBEN W/O HIMMATBHAI RAMANBHAI PURBIYA VS. COLLECTOR AHMEDABAD CITY [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
FORUM FOR BETTER HYDERABAD CONFEDERATION OF VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS OF HYDERABAD VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2003-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ABHILAKH & OTHERS VS. UDIT NARAIN & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-267] [REFERRED]
KRISHNA GUPTA VS. RAJINDER NATH AND CO HUF [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-232] [REFERRED TO]
SHEFALI PODDAR VS. MONOTOSH PANJA [LAWS(CAL)-2003-12-6] [RELIED ON]
L I C OF INDIA VS. ANURADHA [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-115] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYARAGHAVAN VS. RADHAKRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-10-64] [REFERRED TO]
CHIRONJI BAI & ORS VS. NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-186] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH GUPTA VS. ADDITIONAL PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO 6 KANPUR NAGAR AND [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
GODI JAYARAMI REDDY VS. SIDDAMURTHY JAYARAMI REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2003-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-158] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA CHANDRA KAR VS. SK PANCHU alias JAMAL [LAWS(CAL)-2004-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR & ALLIED SCIENCES VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-391] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH ROY VS. ISHWARI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-333] [REFERRED TO]
TAYUB KHAN ALIAS TAYUB SULTAN VS. HAINMNISSA BEEVI [LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-237] [REFERRED TO]
KALLIANI VS. SAROJINI [LAWS(KER)-2011-2-174] [REFERRED TO]
VOL : 3; SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS AND ORS VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-627] [REFERRED]
BANSH RAJ VS. RAJ PAT AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-136] [REFERRED TO]
BHIKHARI VS. D.D.C. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-676] [REFERRED TO]
HAZARA SINGH VS. FAQIRIA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
RUKKAMMAL VS. MOTTAIYAMMAL ALIAS GENGIAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-526] [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL SINGH VS. RAJINDER KAUR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-905] [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL SINGH VS. RAJINDER KAUR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-905] [REFERRED TO]
NATHU LAL VS. GULAB BAI [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-8-74] [REFERRED TO]
OM NARAYAN BOHRE VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD BOHRE [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-195] [REFERRED TO]
MANNANGATTI GOUNDER VS. JANARTHANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2002-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDER GUPTA VS. KANTA GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-247] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHMAN VS. SUBASO AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2019-10-104] [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. KHUDIAL QAYUM [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-172] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Phukan, J. -
(1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal No. 551/75.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : Two brothers, Hira Singh and Jagjit Singh were convicted in a murder case. During their confinement in jail, Jagjit Singh absconded and Hira Singh was granted pardon. After release Hira Singh took possession of the entire land including the share of his brother, Jagjit Singh. Hira Singh died sometime in the year 1920 and on his death, one Smt. Har Kaur, wife of a collateral took possession of the land. Rulia Singh, the adopted son of Hira Singh questioned the mutation as well as possession of Har Kaur and, therefore, she filed a suit for declaration that Rulia Singh was not validly adopted by Hira Singh and also sought permanent injunction restraining Rulia Singh from interfering with her possession. The suit was dismissed ultimately by the High Court and the land including the share of the Jagjit Singh was mutated in the revenue records in the name of Rulia Singh in 1930 and thereafter he remained in undisturbed possession of the land till his death in 1962. Darshan Singh, Ala Singh and Pritam Singh - defendant Nos. 1-3 (appellants in the appeal) - grandsons of Rulia Singh through his daughter got their names mutated in respect of the land including the share of Jagjit Singh. One Gujjar Singh - a sixth-degree collateral of Jagjit Singh challenged the mutation unsuccessfully and thereafter filed the present suit claiming a declaratory decree to the effect that being a collateral of Hira Singh and Jagjit Singh, he was entitled to succeed to the land left behind by them. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court partly allowed the appeal granting a decree in favour of Gujjar Singh only in respect of land of Jagjit Singh, which was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, decree of the appellate Court was upheld with modification to the extent that the land of Jagjit Singh was divided between the plaintiff-Gujjar Singh and other collaterals, who were impleaded as respondent Nos. 2-7. Against the said judgment, the parties are before us in this appeal.
(3.)All the Courts below have held that Rulia Singh was adopted by Hira Singh according to the customary law of Punjab and, therefore, he could under the said custom inherit only the properties of Hira Singh and not the properties of Jagjit Singh, collateral of Hira Singh. On this point there is no dispute. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Rulia Singh and thereafter his successors, the appellants were in adverse possession of the suit land. The first appellate Court held that according customary law, Rulia Singh being adopted son of Hira Singh, was entitled to inherit the share of Hira Singh but not of Jagjit Singh and the plea of adverse possession set up by the appellants over the land of Jagjit Singh was rejected. As stated earlier, the judgment of the first appellate Court was upheld by the High Court with modification and accordingly appeal was partly allowed.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : Two brothers, Hira Singh and Jagjit Singh were convicted in a murder case. During their confinement in jail, Jagjit Singh absconded and Hira Singh was granted pardon. After release Hira Singh took possession of the entire land including the share of his brother, Jagjit Singh. Hira Singh died sometime in the year 1920 and on his death, one Smt. Har Kaur, wife of a collateral took possession of the land. Rulia Singh, the adopted son of Hira Singh questioned the mutation as well as possession of Har Kaur and, therefore, she filed a suit for declaration that Rulia Singh was not validly adopted by Hira Singh and also sought permanent injunction restraining Rulia Singh from interfering with her possession. The suit was dismissed ultimately by the High Court and the land including the share of the Jagjit Singh was mutated in the revenue records in the name of Rulia Singh in 1930 and thereafter he remained in undisturbed possession of the land till his death in 1962. Darshan Singh, Ala Singh and Pritam Singh - defendant Nos. 1-3 (appellants in the appeal) - grandsons of Rulia Singh through his daughter got their names mutated in respect of the land including the share of Jagjit Singh. One Gujjar Singh - a sixth-degree collateral of Jagjit Singh challenged the mutation unsuccessfully and thereafter filed the present suit claiming a declaratory decree to the effect that being a collateral of Hira Singh and Jagjit Singh, he was entitled to succeed to the land left behind by them. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court partly allowed the appeal granting a decree in favour of Gujjar Singh only in respect of land of Jagjit Singh, which was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, decree of the appellate Court was upheld with modification to the extent that the land of Jagjit Singh was divided between the plaintiff-Gujjar Singh and other collaterals, who were impleaded as respondent Nos. 2-7. Against the said judgment, the parties are before us in this appeal.
(3.)All the Courts below have held that Rulia Singh was adopted by Hira Singh according to the customary law of Punjab and, therefore, he could under the said custom inherit only the properties of Hira Singh and not the properties of Jagjit Singh, collateral of Hira Singh. On this point there is no dispute. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Rulia Singh and thereafter his successors, the appellants were in adverse possession of the suit land. The first appellate Court held that according customary law, Rulia Singh being adopted son of Hira Singh, was entitled to inherit the share of Hira Singh but not of Jagjit Singh and the plea of adverse possession set up by the appellants over the land of Jagjit Singh was rejected. As stated earlier, the judgment of the first appellate Court was upheld by the High Court with modification and accordingly appeal was partly allowed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.