1958 (5) TMI 42 - SC - Indian Laws

Hindu son cannot challenge father's sale of property inherited from maternal grandfather under Punjab customary law

MAKTUL Versus Mst. MANBHARI & OTHERS

SC held that property inherited by a Hindu from his maternal grandfather under Punjab customary law does not constitute ancestral property regarding the ... Property inherited by a Hindu from his maternal grandfather - If a Hindu governed by the customary law prevailing in the Punjab succeeds to his maternal grandfather’s estate, is the property in his hands ancestral property qua his own sons? Principle of -stare decisis, would it be right to hold that the view expressed by the High Court of Punjab as early as 1895 was erroneous ? - HELD THAT:- It is difficult to say that the doctrine of stare decisis really applies because the Correctness of the first Full Bench decision has been challenged in the Punjab High Court from time to time and in fact the said decision has been reversed in 1950. It cannot also be said that reversal of the said decision shakes any title or contract. The only effect of the said decision was to confer upon the son of the person who inherited the property from his maternal grandfather the right to challenge his alienation of the said property. It is doubtful if such a right can be regarded as the right in property. It merely gives the son ’in option either to accept the transaction or to avoid it. It cannot be said today that any pending actions would be disturbed because this right has already been taken away by the Full Bench in 1950. In this connection, it may also be relevant to consider another aspect of this matter. If it is held that the property inherited from maternal grandfather is not ancestral property, then it would tend to make the titles of the alienees of -such property more secure. Besides, we are satisfied that the decision of the first Full Bench is wholly unsustainable as a decision on the point of the relevant custom. We are, therefore, inclined to take the view that the doctrine of -stare decisis is in applicable and should present no obstacle in holding that the earlier cases of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court were not correctly decided. In the result we confirm the finding of the High Court that the property in suit is not ancestral property and that the appellant has no right to bring the present suit. The appeal accordingly fails and must be dismissed. The core legal question considered by the Court is whether property inherited by a Hindu from his maternal grandfather under the customary law prevailing in Punjab can be regarded as ancestral property qua his own sons, thereby conferring upon them rights to challenge alienations made by their father.Under Hindu law, ancestral property is strictly defined as property inherited from a male ancestor in the male line, typically the father or paternal ancestors. The Court noted that earlier judicial opinions, including a Privy Council ruling, clarified that property inherited from a maternal grandfather does not qualify as ancestral property in the technical Hindu law sense. The issue before the Court was whether the customary law of Punjab diverges from this principle.The Court examined three Full Bench decisions of the Punjab High Court addressing this question. The first, Lehna v. Musammat Thakri (1895), held that property passing through a daughter to her sons retains its ancestral character. However, this decision was criticized for lacking evidentiary support regarding the custom and for being based on a priori reasoning rather than proven custom. A dissenting opinion in that case emphasized that property derived through a female ancestor had not been traditionally recognized as ancestral under Punjab custom.The second Full Bench in Musammat Attar Kaur v. Nikkoo (1924) acknowledged doubts about the first decision but adhered to it on the basis of stare decisis and the unsettled state of Hindu law at that time. The third Full Bench in Narotam Chand v. Mst. Durga Devi (1950) revisited the issue, considering Privy Council decisions and prior Full Bench rulings. It concluded that property inherited from a maternal grandfather is not ancestral under Punjab customary law, effectively overruling the earlier Full Bench decisions. This ruling was followed by the High Court in the present case.The Court analyzed authoritative texts on Punjab customary law, particularly Rattigan's Digest, which defines ancestral property as property inherited from a direct male lineal ancestor for sons, or from a common male ancestor for collaterals. This definition does not support treating property inherited from a maternal grandfather as ancestral.Two Privy Council decisions were pivotal. In Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai (1937), the Privy Council clarified that under Hindu law, a son does not acquire by birth a joint interest with his father in property inherited from the maternal grandfather. In Attar Singh v. Thakar Singh (1908), the Board emphasized that ancestral property must descend from a lineal male ancestor in the male line, a principle applicable under Punjab customary law as well.The Court considered the doctrine of stare decisis, which generally requires courts to follow established precedent to ensure legal stability. However, it noted that the first Full Bench decision had not been consistently followed or relied upon by the community, had been questioned and reversed by a later Full Bench, and that no titles or contracts would be unsettled by overruling it. The Court held that the principle of stare decisis does not preclude correcting an erroneous decision, especially when it perpetuates a grievous wrong.Applying these principles, the Court found that the property inherited by respondent 10 from his maternal grandfather does not constitute ancestral property qua the appellant, the respondent's son. Consequently, the appellant lacks the right to challenge alienations made by respondent 10 on the basis that the property is ancestral. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision dismissing the appellant's suit and held that the appellant had no reversionary rights to assert in this context.In conclusion, the Court established the following significant holdings:'Under the Hindu law, the only property that can be called ancestral property is property inherited by a person from his father, father's father or father's father's father.''Property inherited by a person from his maternal grandfather is not ancestral property qua his sons under the Hindu law.''The customary law prevailing in Punjab aligns with this principle, and property inherited from a maternal grandfather is not ancestral property qua the inheritor's sons.''Earlier Full Bench decisions of the Punjab High Court holding otherwise were not based on evidence of custom and have been effectively overruled by later authoritative decisions.''The doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent overruling a precedent that is erroneous and not consistently followed, especially when no vested rights or contracts are disturbed.''The appellant has no right to challenge alienations of property inherited from his maternal grandfather on the ground that it is ancestral property.'The Court thus dismissed the appeal, confirming that the property in question cannot be treated as ancestral property between the appellant and respondent 10, and that the appellant's suit challenging the alienations must fail.