In RSA-1493-1990(O&M)- PUNJ HC- Decree requiring registration is not a settled proposition and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case, observes Punjab and Haryana High Court 
Justice H S Madaan [11-04-2023]

Read Order: TEHAL SINGH V. HARDEV SINGH

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, April 14, 2023: If a man acquired property from his ancestors and did not have any son, grandson or great grandson in existence at that time (in the year 1986), it had to be taken as his absolute property with which he could deal with in the manner, and the property would not be treated to be joint Hindu ancestral coparcenary property, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.

The single-judge bench of Justice H.S. Madaan made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, that had found to be legal and valid the transfer of the property, acquired from ancestors, by a childless man to his nephew.

Briefly stated, facts of the case were such that one Bachna was owner of the landed property. He was not blessed with any child; he had suffered a consent decree in favour of his nephew Hardev Singh i.e. son of his real brother Madan Singh; that decree dated August 3, 1986 passed in Civil Suit of 2013 titled as  'Hardev Singh Versus Bachna' by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class,  was assailed  by Tehal Singh, another son of Madan Singh by way of filing a civil suit against his real brother Hardev Singh.

Civil suit after contest was dismissed by Sub Judge, vide  judgment and decree dated December 12, 1988  wherein it was observed that though Bachna had acquired property from his ancestors but since he did not have any son, grandson or great grandson in existence at that time, it had to be taken as his absolute property with which he could deal with in the manner, he liked and plaintiff did not constitute any coparcenary property with Bachna, therefore the decree suffered by Bachna in favour of Hardev Singh was found to be legal and valid.

Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, which was assigned to Additional District Judge, who through judgment and decree dated December 14, 1989 dismissed the same.

Still feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff has knocked at the door of this Court by way of filing a regular second appeal praying that the same be accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below be set aside and his suit be decreed.

After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court noted that  both the Courts below considering the pleadings of the parties and analysing the evidence brought on file as well as settled legal position had come to the conclusion that Bachna was absolute owner of the property and he had a right to deal with it in any manner he felt like including suffering a consent decree in favour of his real nephew Hardev Singh. The decree so suffered by him in favour of Hardev Singh was found to be legal and valid. The version of the plaintiff that the property in the hands of Bachna was joint Hindu ancestral coparcenary property in which Tehal Singh had acquired an interest was rejected.

The findings given by the Courts below are based upon proper appreciation and correct interpretation of law. Both the Courts had rejected the claim of the plaintiff, the Court noted. It was further stated that it failed to find any reason to disagree with the Courts below and take a different view and further to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. Those judgments and decrees were thus upheld.

With respect to the case relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant,   Bhoop Singh Versus Ram Singh Major and others, wherein the Apex Court held that the impugned decree required compulsory registration, in view of the same, the Court noted that  the same does not find application due to different facts and circumstances of the case and the context in which such observations had been made.

Hence, by observing that no substantial question of law was found in the present appeal, the Court dismissed the same accordingly.