SULTAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to appreciate the controversy, the following pedigree table may be kept in view: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_647_DRJ24_1992Html1.htm</FRM> Banwari Lal was the Karta of the joint Hindu family and the joint Hindu family had substantial joint Hindu property and business. On 27th March, 1942, Banwari Lal died, leaving behind, his widow, Smt. Roop Devi and three sons, namely, Murari Lal, Amar Nath and Dewan Chand. Murari Lal was the eldest son and, therefore, he became the Karta. On 10th July, 1942, the coparcenary was dissolved and on 26th June, 1943 adeed of settlement/partition was executed between the coparceners and their mother, Smt. Roop Devi, as on partition of joint Hindu family, besides some cash, she was given the ownership of a three storeyed house on plot No.49, Block G, Lekhram Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. In plot, the erstwhile, Hindu undivided family had held perpetual lease hold rights. The translation of the relevant recital is reproduced herein below:

(2.) On 17th June, 1956, Hindu Succession Act came into force and by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act, whatever property she got under the settlement deed of 26th June, 1943, became the full ownership of Smt. Roop Devi and she ceased to have a restricted widow's estate. There is a string of authorities of the Supreme Court in this behalf that where a Hindu female is given immovable property in recognition of her pre-existing right, she becomes the full owner thereof by virture of section 14(1) of the Act and the limited estate which she held immediately before coming into force of the Act, got converted into full ownership.

(3.) On 18th October, 1961, Murari Lal died and on 4th November, 1971 the two sons of Murari Lal filed a suit for declaration against their grand-mother and uncles to the effect that they are onwer of l/3rd undivided share in the immovable property of Darya Ganj along with the perpetual lease-hold rights in the plot and in the alternative prayed that they will have absolute ownership of l/3rd share in the said property on the death of smt. Roop Devi and yet prayed in the alternative that in respect of the portion occupied by them in the house of Smt. Roop Devi, they have become owners by adverse possession. The Delhi Development Authority was impleaded as a defendant in the said suit.