MANSHAN Vs. TEJ RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In our opinion this appeal is covered by the ratio of the decision in Giani Ram v. Ramji Lal, (1969) 3 SCR 944, which case was cited before the High Court but since the full report of the judgment was not available to it, it could not correctly apply the principle and decided the case against the appellants by taking an erroneous view of the law. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(2.) One Nritya Choudhary indisputably governed by the general Punjab custom was the last male holder of certain agricultural land, Abadi and a house. On 9-8-1946 he gifted his property to his two daughters, Manshan and Janki. Manshan is appellant No. 1 and the heirs of Janki are the other appellants in this appeal. On the 17th December, 1947 a suit was filed by one Bhagat Ram, father of respondents 1 to 3, a collateral of Chaudhary for a declaration that the properties were ancestral in the hands of Chaudhary and the gift made by him in favour of his daughters could not enure beyond his lifetime. A declaratory decree to that effect was sought for. On the 7th of March, 1950 a compromise decree was made in that suit declaring that 27/39th share of the land in dispute would go to the next reversioner of Chaudhary and the remaining 12/39th share of the land, the Abadi and the house were left out of the declaratory decree. In respect of the latter property the suit was dismissed by compromise. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act, came into force on and from the 17th of June, 1956. Chaudhary died on the 18th of October, 1957. Bhagat Ram's heirs thereafter filed the present suit giving rise to this appeal for claiming the land of Chaudhary in respect of which a declaratory decree had been made in favour of Bhagat Ram. The stand taken on behalf of the appellants was that after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act the daughters in supersession of the custom prevalent in Punjab became the preferential heirs of Chaudhary and hence on his death they became entitled to the property in question. They succeeded before the trial Court as also before the First Appellate Court. They however lost in the High Court. The High Court allowed the second appeal and it is not quite clear from the judgment of the Division Bench as to on what basis the appeal was allowed.

(3.) The argument put forward on behalf of the respondents in the High Court with reference to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act was wholly misplaced. There was no question of applying either sub-section (1) or sub-sec. (2) of Section 14 of the said Act. Here the simple question which had to be answered was as to who was the heir of Chaudhary under the Hindu Succession Act on the date of his death. The property will revert to him or her. Reading Sections 4 and 8 of the Act together it is clear to us that on the date of death of Chaudhary, in supersession of the prevalent custom, his daughters became the preferential heirs and were entitled to inherit his property. Chaudhary might have remained a life owner according to the custom. But the portion of the custom which prevented the daughters from inheriting got superseded by the provisions of the Act and hence Bhagat Ram's heirs were no longer entitled to succeed to the property of Chaudhary in the year 1957. The effect of the declaratory decree passed in the year 1950, it is plain, was merely to declare that whosoever would be the next reversioner to the estate of Chaudhary at the time of his death would get the property in respect of which the declaratory decree was made and not necessarily the person in whose favour the declaratory decree was passed.