AMARJIT KAUR AND ORS.versusKARAMVIR SINGH AND ORS.

A                           AMARJIT KAUR AND ORS.
                                      v.
                           KARAMVIR SINGH AND ORS.

                                    APRIL 25, 2006

B               [ARIJIT PASAYA T AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
                                                                                       -
          Hindu Law:

          Reversionary rights-Entitlement to-Sale of suit property/ancestral
C property by common ancestor ofboth the parties-Sale challenged by ancestor
    of one of the parties--Compromise decree between the challenging ancestor
    and vendee-Ejfect of compromise decree on the reversionary rights of other
    heirs/other party on death of common ancestor-Held: Reversionary rights
    of other heirs was not affected by the compromise decree-The property
D   alienated reverted to the estate of alienor at the poinl of his death and all
    the persons who would but for the alienation. will be entitled to inherit the
    same.

           •A', common ancestor of the appellants and respondents had sold the
    property in dispute to 'B'. 'J'-ancestor of the appellants filed a suit for
E   declaration that the sale was without consideration and legal necessity. The
    suit when reached in appeal to High Court, was decreed declaring that the
    sale would not affect the reversionary rights of' J'. In appeal to this Court, a
    (:ompromise was arrived at between 'J' and 'B' and the property was
    relinquished by 'B' after accepting a particular amount from 'J'. However,
F   the declaration regarding reversionary rights was not modified. Appeal filed
    by 'B' was dismissed. 'J' got the mutation sanctioned in his name in relation
    to the entire land. Respondents filed a suit for declaration that the mutation
    was not correct and had no effect on their rights as they had acquired 17/24
    share in the suit land as reversioners on death of• A' and the compromise
    decree of this Court was not binding on them as they were not parties to the
G   compromise. The suit was decided against the respondents/plaintiffs. First
    appeal was decided in favour of the respondents. However, second appeal was
    dismissed by High Court as no question of law was involved. Hence the present
    appeal


H                                        228
            AMARJIT KAUR v. KARAMVIR SINGH [PASA YAT, J.]                   229
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court                                              A
      HELD: I.I. Since there was no modification of the terms of the
declaration that the sale would not affect the reversionary rights of'J' after
the death of' A' which in fact would mean that the property in dispute would
be inherited by all the heris of'A'. (232-B-Cj
                                                                                    B
      Giani's Ram v. Ramjilal, (1969) 1SCC813, relied on.

      1.2. Effect of such a declaratory decree is merely to declare that by the
sale interest conveyed in favour of the alienee was to ensure during the life
time of the alienor. The property alienated reverted to the estate of the alienor
at the point of his death and all persons who would but for the alienation will     C
be entitled to inherit the same. (234-C-D)

     2. A bare perusal of the order of this Court while recording the
compromise shows that the rights of the plaintiffs was kept intact by
dismissing the appeal of 'B' against them. If 'J' had spent any money as            D
claimed, that is a matter of adjustment when the actual allotment is made.
                                                                   (234-D-E)

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4366 of2002.

     From the Final Order dated 8.2.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and            E
Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A No. 2550/2001.

     Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Ms. Apama Rohatgi Jain, Mahesh Kasana and K.B.
Rohatgi for the Appellants.

     P.C. Jain, Sucha Singh, Amit Talwar, R.K. Talwar and S.L. Aneja for the        F
Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of
judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court at Chandigarh in second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of         G
Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC').

      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

     One Ajit Singh was a common ancestor of the appellants and the
respondents. The respondents as plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration t<>     H
    230                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the effect that they are owners to the extent of 17124 share in the I07 Kanals
  and 2 Marlas of land, out of 151 Kanals 5 Marlas of land in dispute which
  had been allotted to their common ancestor Ajit Singh at the time of
  consolidation. Ajit Singh was a man of full vices, a spend-thrift person and
  had sold his land to one Bishan Singh without consideration and legal
  necessity. Joginder Singh, ancestor of the present appellants I to 5 and 7 had
B filed a suit for declaration that said sale was without consideration and legal
  necessity and as such void and had no effect on the reversionary rights. The
  said suit was decreed up to the High Court. Before this Court a compromise
  was arrived at between Joginder Singh and Bishan Singh in which the latter
  admitted that the land was ancestral property and the sale was ineffective . He,
C therefore, relinquished his right in the same after accepting a sum of Rs.
  30,000 from Joginder Singh, the original defendant no. I. With a ma/a fide
  intent Joginder Singh initially got the mutation sanctioned in his name in
  relation to the entire land and, thereafter had got a portion thereof mutated
  in favour of his son, Harpal Singh (defendant no.2) and his wife Smt. Harjinderjit
  Kaur (defendant no.3 ). Appellant No. 2 Manraj Singh is the son of Harpal
D Singh. These entries, according to the plaintiffs were incorrect and had no
  effect on their rights as they had acquired 17/24 share in the suit land as
  reversioners on the death of Ajit Singh on 3.9.1986. The decree of this Court
  was not binding on them as they were not parties to the compromise. The
  plaintiffs had requested the defendants to admit their claim, but to no effect.
E Therefore, the suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession was
  filed. The suit was contested by the defendants who admitted the relationship
  inter se, as also the fact that the land in question was allotted at the time of
  consolidation in lieu of the land which was ancestral in the hands of Ajit
  Singh. It was also admitted that Ajit Singh had sold the land without legal
  necessity and consideration and that defendant no. I Joginder Singh had filed
F suit for declaration which was decreed up to the High Court, and a compromise
  had been affected by Joginder Singh with Bishan Singh. They also admitted
  that after the compromise possession was taken by Joginder Singh. However,
  it was submitted that the High Court had observed that the sale in favour of
  Bishan Singh was void and would not affect the revisionary rights of Joginder
G Singh after the death of Ajit Singh. Before this Court only Joginder Singh was
  a party and it was he, who had entered into compromise with Bishan Singh,
  in pursuance whereof a decree was passed. On the basis of this decree
  Joginder Singh claimed that he had become owner of the suit land. Joginder
  Singh had also incurred huge expenses for making the land fertile and had
  installed electricity tubewell, electric motor of 7.5 horse power and also
H
            AMARJITKAUR v. KARAMVIR SINGH [PASAYAT, J.]                  231

constructed 4/5 rooms for the storage of seed, fertilizer etc. He also claimed A
to have grown orchard in an area of four acres and planted 600/700 eucalyptus
trees. Other defendants 2 to 6 claimed to have become owners by way of
decree of a Court and mutual exchanges. It was stated that in view of the
decision in favour of Joginder Singh in the earlier suit, the subsequent suit
was not maintainable and the decision of this Court dated 22.3 .1966 operated
as res judicata. It was also submitted that plaintiffs were estopped from filing B
suit by their own acts and conduct and the suit was barred by time and also
bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Reference was made to Order 32
Rule 3 of the CPC with regard to the appointment of guardian for the minor
defendants. It was pleaded that these mandatory provisions were not complied
with and the suit was band qua the minor defendants. 13 issues were framed C
by the trial court which after examining evidence decided the relevant issues
i.e. issues nos. 3 to 6 as quoted below against the plaintiffs:

       "3. Whether sale of the suit property by Ajit Singh in favour of
           Bishan Singh is null and void, and if so, its effect? OPP
       4.   Whether plaintiffs are owners of the suit property? OPP              D
       5.   If issue No.4 is proved whether plaintiff is entitled to the
            possession of the suit property as prayed for? OPP
       6.   Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?
            OP?'                                                                 E
       Appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by learned Additional
.District Judge, Jalandhar holding that Joginder Singh was entitled to the
 benefit of the decree in the earlier suit and the findings in relation to the
 above issues were reversed. In the second appeal the High Court was of the
 view that the only question which arises for consideration is whether the F
 settlement arrived at between Joginder Singh (defendant No. I) and Bishan
 Singh would entitle Joginder Singh alone to the benefit of the decree passed
 in the suit filed by him against Bishan Singh. The High Court felt that no
 question of law was involved and accordingly dismissed it.

       The High Court noticed that the admitted case was that the alienation     G
of their predecessor-in-interest Ajit Singh in favour of Bishan Singh was
assailed by Joginder Singh alone in a suit arraying by Bishan Singh, his
brothers, namely, Nirrnaltej Singh and Karamvir Singh along with Ajit Singh
as defendants. The suit was decreed in his favour by the High Court declaring
that the sale would not affect his reversionary rights after the death of Ajit   H
    232                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Singh for an amount in excess of Rs. I011 /- and he would be entitled to take
    possession of the land on payment of the aforesaid amount. In appeal before
    this Court, Joginder Singh and Bishan Singh entered into compromise by
    virtue of which Joginder Singh agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- in place
    of Rs. I011 /- which he would have been required to pay if the decree had not
    been modified.
B
           There was no modification of the terms of the declaration that the sale
    would not affect the reversionary rights of Joginder Singh after the death of
    Ajit Singh which in fact would mean that the property in dispute would be
    inherited by all the heirs of Ajit Singh. The Trial Court fell into grave error
C   in relation to this aspect of the case and, therefore, the first Appellate Court
    was justified in its view.

         According to learned counsel for the appellants the basic issue was
  whether the compromise entered into between Joginder Singh and Bishan
  Singh before this Court, with regard to the ancestral property of Ajit Singh
D after the death of Joginder Singh would have any effect on the reversionary
  rights oi the other heirs of Ajit Singh. It was, therefore, submitted that sale
  putatively due to legal necessity was entered into on 14.3.1942 but for the suit
  filed in 1943, the sale would have been final and binding. As a consequence
  of Joginder Singh's suit and appeals, thereafter the sale was treated for
  necessity to a limited extent. Under the compromise, (a) exclusive rights were
E accorded to Joginder Singh and (b) if Joginder Singh had not paid the sum
  in the compromise decree, the entire suit would have been dismissed and the
  sale would have been valid. Further, Joginder Singh was to be given entire
  land even before the death of Ajit Singh with full rights to consolidation,
  mutation and attainment of tenants. The other reversioners were party to the
F suit and appeal proceedings and became majors on 23. l 0.1959 and 17.11. 1964;
  thus being capable of conducting their own proceedings without a guardian
  ad litum. They acquiesced to in the compromise decree fully conscious of
  their rights. The compromise decree was (a) a bona fide transaction (b)
  between Joginder Singh and the vendee for consideration (c) entitled Joginder
  Singh exclusively to possess and mutate all records and attom all tenants (d)
G Joginder had acted as exclusive owner from 1966 to 1986 and beyond. He also
  spent huge sums of money for improvements and additions from his own
  funds. No other party had the means to pay for the compromise other than
  Joginder Singh. There was acquiescence to the decree both by the father
  (Vendor and Ajit Singh) and the reversioners. It was submitted that equitable
H principles such as estoppel, elections family settlement etc. are not mere
            AMARJITKAUR v. KARAMVIR SINGH [PASAYAT, J.]                     233
technical rules of evidence. The ultimate aim of law is to secure justice. There    A
are three classes of estoppel that may arise for consideration which are (I)
within ambit of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence
Act') (2) election in the strict sense of the term whereby the person electing
takes a benefit under the transaction and (3) ratification i.e. agreeing to abide
by the transaction. ·
                                                                                    B
      A presumptive reversioner coming under any of the aforesaid categories
is precluded from questioning the transaction, when succession grants and
when he becomes the actual reversioner. The principles of acquiescence may
also make revesionary rights defeasible.

      In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the C
time of Ajit Singh's death the right survived and the Punjab (Custom) (Power
to Contest] Act of 1920 was in operation. It is to be noted that p'lea relating
to acquiescence was not pleaded before any of the courts below and, in fact,
there is no acquiescence as the compromise entered into between Joginder
Singh and Bishan Singh has no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs. Their D
rights were protected by this Court in dismissing appeal of Bishan Singh
against them. The relevant portion of this Court's earlier order makes this
position clear. Only effect of the compromise was that by paying certain
amount Joginder Singh became entitled to the possession of the suit land
immediately, which otherwise could have been taken by him only after the
death of Ajit Singh. Ajit Singh's land became part of his estate and the same E
devolved upon all the legal heirs. As rightly held by the first Appellate Court
and confirmed by the High Court, Joginder Singh had no right to deny claim
of other heirs on the. ground that he got possession of the land from Bishan
Singh on the basis of the compromise affected between them. The plaintiffs
could not have been deprived of their legal rights by the compromise in F
question.

       Rival contentions need careful consideration. It would be appropriate at
this stage to take note of this Court's judgment in Giani's Ram v. Ramjilal,
(1969] I SCC 813. It was inter alia held as follows :-
                                                                                    G
            "The Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920, was
        enacted to restrict the rights exercisable by members of the family to
        contest alienations made by a holder of ancestral property. By virtue
        of Section 6 of the Act no person is entitled to contest an alienation
        of ancestral immovable property unless he is descended in the male
                                                                                    H
    234                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A             line from the great-great grandfather of the alienor. Under the customary
              law in force in the Punjab a declaratory decree obtained by the
              reversionary heir in an action to set aside the alienation of ancestral
              property enured in favour of all persons who ultimately took the
              estate on the death of the alienor for the object of a declaratory suit
              filed by a reversionary heir impeaching an alienation of ancestral
B             estate was to remove a common apprehended injury, in the interest of
              the reversioners. The decree did not make the alienation a nullity - it
              removed the obstacle to the right of the reversioner entitled to succeed
              when the succession opened."

        It was also held that effect of such a declaratory decree is merely to
c declarate that by the sale interest conveyed in favour of the alienee was to
    ensure during the life time of the alienor. The inevitable conclusion is that the
    property alienated reverted to the estate of the alienor at the point of his
    death and all persons who would but for the alienation will be entitled to
    inherit the same.
D
         A bare perusal of the order of this Court while recording the compromise
    shows that the rights of the plaintiffs was kept in tact by dismissing the
    appeal of Bishan Singh against them.

             If Joginder Singh had spent any money as claimed, that is a matter of
E adjustment when the actual allotment is made. Above being the position,
    there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    K.K.T.                                                        Appeal dismissed.·