1969 (3) TMI 95 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Decree on Ancestral Property Rights and Mesne Profits

Giasi Ram and Ors. Versus Ramjilal and Ors.

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's decree, granting possession of the ancestral property to the sons, widow, and daughters, with specific ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of ancestral property rights under customary law.2. Application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on ancestral property.3. Validity of declaratory decree on ancestral property alienation.4. Rights of sons, daughters, and widow in ancestral property.5. Application of Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920.6. Jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC.Analysis:1. The case involved the sale of ancestral property by a Hindu Jat in 1916, governed by customary law, without legal necessity. A declaratory decree was obtained in 1920, stating the alienation was ineffective beyond the vendor's lifetime, affecting reversionary rights.2. After the vendor's death in 1959, his estate devolved upon his widow, sons, and daughters under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A suit was filed by the sons, daughters, and widow against the legal representatives of the buyer, leading to conflicting judgments at different levels.3. The High Court held that the sons were entitled to the ancestral property alienated by the vendor, excluding the widow and daughters due to the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920. The declaratory decree obtained by a reversioner had the effect of restoring the alienated property to the estate of the vendor.4. The Court rejected the argument that the sons had no subsisting reversionary interest post the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that the Act did not nullify the earlier decree. It was established that the property reverted to the estate of the vendor upon his death.5. The Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920 restricted the rights to contest ancestral property alienations. The Court clarified the effect of the declaratory decree and the rights of family members under customary law and subsequent legislation.6. The judgment highlighted the jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC, allowing the Appellate Court to pass any decree that ought to have been passed, ensuring justice in cases where all parties are not in appeal.In conclusion, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's decree, granting possession of the ancestral property to the sons, widow, and daughters, with specific interests specified. Mesne profits were awarded, and costs were allowed throughout.