Mam Kaur, amounts to an admission that there was numberright created in his favour by gift which was declared invalid and on this basis learned companynsel for the appellants companytended that the appellants are entitled to succeed and the High Court was number right in granting the decree on the basis of the claim of the two daughters who claimed to be the heirs of Hazari Singh.
As it is well settled that this limited estate in favour of Smt.
Against this judgment of the trial companyrt losing parties filed their appeals before the Additional District Judge who by his judgment and decree dated 25.9.78 maintained the decree in the suit of Sohan Bai and reversed the trial companyrt judgment in the suit of Smt.
Mam Kaur is companycerned the learned companyrts below have companye to a positive finding of fact that there was numbertransfer of possession in favour of Smt.
Therefore during her lifetime the alienee alone had the rights in property.
In 1944 it is alleged that Smt.
Mam Kaur died and Smt.
It was also companytended that the two decisions on which reliance is placed by the learned companynsel are clearly distinguishable on facts as in these two judgments on the date the Hindu Suc cession Act came into force, the widow was possessed of the property and therefore it was held that she acquired the rights as full owner.
1716/78 1017 and defendants in Smt.
Mam Kaur had already parted with her widows estate by gift deed made by her in 1945 in favour of Ranjit Singh and therefore she had numbersubsisting title which she companyld transfer by way of sale by the sale deed dated 4.9.63 and thus by this sale deed as she herself had numbertitle she companyld number companyvey any title in favour of Ranjit Singh and his brothers.
Pan Bai to deposit the sale amount and seek pre emption failing which her suit was to be dismissed and a later date was given to Munshi Singh and his brothers to deposit the sale amount and opt for pre emption.
1947 which was companyfirmed on appeal that on the death of Smt.
1698/78 in the Punjab Haryana High Court.
Mam Kaur the property will revert back to the heirs of Smt.
Mam Kaur and it is also well settled that if during the life time of Smt.
Against this judgment Ranjit Singh preferred an appeal but this was also dismissed.
As regards the companytention about Smt.
On the one hand companynsel for the appellants companytended that in fact adoption was followed by gift more or less in the nature of a step to accelerate the succession and when the companyrt declared both to be invalid it clearly meant that the donee who was the adopted son Ranjit Singh was number left with any rights in the properties whereas on behalf of the respondents it was companytended that adoption numberdoubt was declared invalid but so far as gift was companycerned it was declared invalid in a suit for declaration by rever sioners to the limited extent that this gift will number affect the rights of the reversioners thereby meaning that so far as the life estate of Smt.
It was there fore companytended that in view of decision in Kuldip Singh and others v. Surain Singh and Others, 1968 P.L.R. 30 which is a judgment of a Bench .of three Judges of this Court, Smt.
Learned companynsel for the respondents on the other hand companytended that the decree declaring the gift bad was only a declaratory decree in favour of the reversioners that clear ly meant that so far as reversioners rights on the death of Smt.
Mam Kaur during her lifetime is companycerned as she had gifted away the property to Ranjit Singh and delivered possession she had numberrights left with her.
Alternatively it was companytended that gift in favour of Ranjit Singh was declared invalid and therefore she companyld be said to be possessed of the property in view of language of Section 14 1 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Mam Kaur she had a residuary right left in her which she companyld dispose of.
Sohan Bai who was also a plaintiff in suit out of which second appeal before the High Court was No.
In fact what residuary rights companyld be thought of were number the rights of the widow but the right of the reversioners to get as heirs of her husband on her death and on that basis it companyld number be said that she companyld be said to be possessed of any right in the property which she held as a limited owner on the date the Hindu Succession Act came into force.
In any event his accepting to purchase the property from Smt.
Sohan Bai Munshi Plaintiff in Plaintiff in Singh Ranjit Singh suit out of suit out of five others and6 other sons which RSA No.
On 4th June, 1963 Smt.
In January 1965 Smt.
Mam Kaur did number validly adopt Ranjit defdt.
Mam Kaur had all the rights which an heir companyld have in immovable property but in the case of female heirs the only limitation was in respect of alienation and alienation companyld only be of the rights that she companyld alienate and that amounts to only life interest.
Learned companynsel for the appellants on the basis of decisions of this Court in Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapa dam Pillai and Ors.,
The main companytro versy raised in these appeals is that in the earlier suit the adoption and gift both were declared as invalid in a suit for declaration filed by the reversioners, what will be its effect?
Thereafter 1016 to claim pre emption a suit was filed by Smt.
In these preemption matters ultimately the Court held that Smt.
Both these second appeals Were disposed of by the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Pan Bai on the ground that as Smt.
Mam Kaur had succeeded to the property as an heir of her husband and because of Hindu womens right to property Act, 1937 Smt.
Mam Kaur sold away the entire lands to Ranjit Singh and his brothers for an amount of Rs.50,000.
Pan Bai also filed a similar suit which was numbered 203/68 to claim possession of the remaining half share on the same ground, as was filed by Smt.
It was also companytended that in spite of the fact that a gift creating a life interest in favour of Ranjit Singh was in existence but Smt.
Mam Kaur before the sale deed by her was executed and while companying to the company clusion the companyrts below have companysidered the effect of the recital in the sale deed executed by Smt.
As regards the question about the declaration of the gift to be invalid, the judgment which granted the decree in favour of the reversioners clearly indicated that it was a decree of declaration saying that the gift had numbereffect on the rights of the reversioners.
The aforesaid land along with the other land shall be divided in equal shares after the death of Sheru alias Bhushe hari and Dhari shall himself give due share to Hari Ram in accordance with the aforementioned order.
403/65 seeking a decree for posses sion of half of the share on the plea that in view of the declaratory decree dated 24.7.
Alternatively it was 1018 also companytended by learned companynsel for the appellants that even if the gift in favour of Ranjit Singh is accepted it is clear that Smt.
It is also well settled that the alienaee in this case Ranjit Singh will get the property till the life time of Smt.
Mam Kaur are companycerned they companyld number be affected by gift but it did number mean that Smt.
Pan Bais suit for pre emption 1019 leading to estoppel also companytentions were advanced.
So far as Smt.
Mam Kaur is companycerned and it was therefore companytended that the judgment passed by the High Court companyld number be assailed.
The effect if any of the earlier decree was that on her death the property will revert back and in that event it will revert back to the heirs of her husband number to her heirs and in this view it was companytended that the judgment passed by the High Court is companyrect.
Learned companynsel for the appellants companytended that as the adoption and gift both were declared invalid although a declaration was granted in a suit by reversioners but it clearly meant that numberhing remained with the so called donee and therefore when Hindu Succession Act companye into force because of Section 14 clause 1 Smt.
Mam Kaur succession had to be traced to Hazari Singh i.e. Sohan Bais father and she being the direct heir of Hazari Singh was entitled to half share in the land.
Mam Kaur before the sale deed was executed.
1020 So far as the companytention of the learned companynsel for the appellant about the transfer of possession from Ranjit Singh back to Smt.
Mam Kaur who was enjoying the limited estate before the Hindu Succession Act came into force, transferred her rights by gift and if a valid gift is ef fected it companyld number be companytended that there were any residu ary rights left with her.
Mam Kaur in favour of Ranjit Singh.
Pan Bai and held that both the daughters were entitled to succeed to half share each in the property.
Mam Kaur Jawana Singh Lakhi Singh Smt.
Pan Bai filed a suit for pre emption.
Bhushehari companytinued to enjoy the right and benefit she had during her limited ownership until 1956.
Mam Kaur became full rights on companying into force of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore if Smt.
Sohan Bai.
Pan Bai Smt.
The companytentions advanced by learned companynsel in respect of residuary rights also is of numberconsequence as it is apparent that Smt.
Mam Kaur.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No.
It appears and it was companytended by the companynsel for the appel lants that adoption was first and gift was only a companysequen tial act to accelerate the succession whereas learned companyn sel for the respondents companytended that gift was first where as adoption was subsequent.
Pan Bai had filed a suit claiming on the basis of pre emption earlier she was estopped from disputing the validity of sale made by Smt Mam Kaur.
Mam Kaur did number transfer her rights by gift in favour of Ranjit Singh.
In order to clearly understand the facts the pedigree of the family would be relevant 1015 Hari Singh Sanehi Singh Hazari Singh Smt.
In the mean time Smt.
Pan Bai on the basis of estoppel is companycerned it is clear from the language of Section 115 of the Evidence Act that doctrine of estoppel can number be invoked merely because Smt.
Mam Kaur was companycerned it was transferred by this gift deed but the right of the rever sioners to succeed on the death of Smt.
The operative portion of the companypromise decree which was quoted by this Court in the judgment clearly indicated that as the gift deed was ineffective in respect of the lands mentioned therein the widow companytinued to enjoy the rights and benefits till the Hindu Succession Act came in force as it is observed The effect of the aforesaid was that the gift was ineffective and Smt.
Pan Bai, Plaintiff in the suit out of which second appeal before the High Court was No.
Sohan Bais suit was decreed but on appeal it was remanded.
defendants Defendants 7 1698 of 1978 17 16 of 1978 Nos.1to 6 to 13 has arisen has arisen Hazari Singh owned agricultural lands the dimensions and its identity is number in dispute before us and he died in November 1918 leaving behind his widow Smt.
Pan Bai is companycerned she did number deposit the amount and therefore her suit for pre emption was dismissed where as Munshi Singh and others deposited the amount and obtained a decree of preemp tion which was executed and they obtained possession and in this manner they stood substituted in the sale.
Mam Kaur adopted Ranjit Singh grandson of Sanehi Singh and son of Lakhi Singh.
Pan Bai had a superior right as companypared to Munshi Singh and his brothers and therefore and earlier date was given to Smt.
Hazari Singh had left behind two daughters i.e. Smt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Mam Kaur transferred by sale the property the sale would companyvey at least the residuary rights vested in her i.e. the right of absolute ownership at most subject to possession of the alienee during her lifetime and on this basis it was companytended that the sale made by Smt.
Mam Kaur before this sale deed was executed.
This Ranjit Singh had six other brothers and it is alleged that in 1945 Smt.
It was also companytended that Ranjit Singh in whose favour the gift was alleged to have been made himself agreed to purchase this property alongwith his brothers this indicates that he accepted the position that Smt.
Mam Kaur became the absolute owner and therefore she had a valid right to trans fer the property by sale.
Mam Kaur and even if the widest meaning is given to possessed of still it companyld number be companytended that she had any rights left with her.
Mam Kaur still had the residuary rights of disposing of the property after her death if during her lifetime the Hindu Succession Act came into force.
Mam Kaurs husband.
3/16 to 27 bighas situated in village Barsu Ballah is hereby rejected and declared ineffective.
Pan Bai and the other suit was filed by Munshi Singh and his five broth ers on the ground that as reversioners they have a superior right to pre emption.
1898 of 1978.
Mam Kaur and the fact that Ranjit Singh is one of the purchasers and having gone through the judgments, in our opinion, the companyclusions companyld number be said to be erroneous and therefore the companyten tions of the learned companynsel for the appellants on that ground companyld number be accepted.
Munshi Singh and his five brothers filed a suit for declaration challenging this gift and adoption made by Smt.
A companytroversy was also raised as to which adoption or gift was first in time and what is its effect?
1987 2 SCC 572 and Gopal Singh and Another v. Dile Ram dead by LRs and others, 1988 1 SCC 417 companytended that as the gift at best companyld be said to be effective during the lifetime of Smt.
As in the present case it did companye into force, the limited rights which remained with Smt.
1698/78 and Smt.
As regards the effect of Smt.
Sohan Bai filed a suit bearing No.
Mam Kaur who inherited the property.
Pan Bais case filed regular second appeal which was No.
Most of the facts are number in dispute.
Mam Kaur had a limited estate.
By judgment and decree dated 247.1947 the suit was decreed and it was held that the adoption of Ranjit Singh was invalid and the gift also was held ,to be invalid and a declaration was granted in respect of the gift so far as it affected the reversionary rights.
which RSA No.
It was also companytended that in the sale deed, Ranjit Singh himself was one of the purchasers and the sale deed indicates that at the time of sale Smt.
On the other hand learned companynsel for the respondents companytended that as the gift was valid the property was trans ferred in favour of the alienee i.e. Ranjit Singh although it was the life estate but with the Hindu Succession Act companying into force she companyld number be said to be possessed of the property as there were numberrights in the property vested in Smt.
The words in the operative part of the judgment stated For the reasons aforesaid the plaintiffs succeed and are granted a decree for declara tion that Mst.
It was also companytended that so far as the question of re conveyance by Ranjit Singh in favour of Smt.
Mam Kaur Hindu Succession Act came into force, as the property in suit was in the hands of alienee i.e. Ranjit Singh he will number get the benefit of Section 14 1 and will number become the abso lute owner but on the death of Smt.
1716/78 and 1698/78 wherein the learned Judge dismissed the two second appeals and maintained the judgment of the appellate companyrt i.e. Additional District Judge granting a decree for half share of the property each in favour of Smt.
Mam Kaur companyld number be said to be a person possessed of anything and therefore numberbenefit companyld be obtained by Section 14 1 so far as Smt.
17 16/78.
Mam Kaur was pro tected as it was declared that this gift will number affect the rights of the reversioners.
A. Ramachandran and Ramesh K. Keshwani for the Re spondents.
123124 of 1985.
But it is number disputed that the gift also is numberhing more than an oral gift and the same is about adoption.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA, J. These appeals arise out of the judgment of Punjab Haryana High Court dated 21.9.1984 in Regular Second Appeal Nos.
Similar companydition of dismissal of the suit for failure of depositing the amount was imposed.
The two suits were companysolidated and the trial companyrt by its judgment dated 2nd January, 1973 decreed Smt.
Against this judgment the defendants in Smt.
It was also pleaded that Smt.
Sohan Bais suit but dismissed the suit filed by Smt.
Mam Kaur but it companyld number be disputed that so far as Smt.
Mam Kaur is companycerned, the question has been examined on the basis of evidence by the two companyrts below and a positive finding has been arrived at by the companyrts that the evidence is number sufficient to companye to the companyclu sion that there was transfer of possession from Ranjit Singh to Smt.
1716 of 1978 and S.A. No.
Sohan Bai, the two daugh ters of deceased Smt.
Shanti Bhushan, Vishnu Mathur, Mrs. Roxna Swamy and Rajinder Singh for the Appellants.
Mam Kaur after companying into force of the Hindu Succes sion Act had acquired the absolute rights and she companyld companyvey the property by sale.
Pan Bai and Smt.
Mam Kaur gifted all the lands which she had inherited from her husband by an oral gift to Ranjit Singh.
Mam Kaur.
In this view of the matter it is therefore clear that what was held was that the gift will number affect the rights of the reversioners on the death of Smt.
