MAHENDER SINGH Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 3.2.2014. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs/appellants (and who are therefore the appellants in this Court) against the judgment of the trial court dated 30.9.2013. Trial court had dismissed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs by which the appellants/plaintiffs had sought nullification of the relinquishment deed dated 13.8.1999 executed by Smt. Chhotto whereby she had transferred her 1/6th share in the land comprised in 47 bighas and 7 biswas of land situated in the revenue estate of village Chhawla, New Delhi.

(2.) THE only issue which was urged before the first appellate court, and is also the issue urged before this Court, is a purely legal issue as to whether the inheritance by Smt. Chhotto of the lands in question in the year 1939 when her husband Sh. Nathu died was only as a life estate, and that inheritance continued to be a life estate when the land holding became the land holding of a bhumidar on the passing of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (in short 'DLR Act'). What is argued on behalf of the appellants - plaintiffs is that since Smt. Chhotto inherited only a life estate from her husband in 1939 as per the prevalent personal law applicable to females, the passing of the Delhi Land Reforms Act made no difference to the character of her holding of a life estate, and which continued only as a life estate, and the same did not become a full estate in view of Section 48(2) of the DLR Act. It is argued on behalf of the appellants by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Mehar Vs. Mst. Dakhan 1973(9) DLT 44 that the provision of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not convert the life estate which Smt. Chhotto had at the time of passing of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 into a full estate merely on account of passing of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inasmuch as, Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession which excluded applicability of this Act to the revenue/land laws existed in the statute book on the date of relinquishment i.e on 13.8.1999, and hence the provisions of Hindu Succession Act would not prevail in supersession of the revenue laws such as the DLR Act which provide for prevention of fragmentation of holdings etc and as so recognized in the judgment in the case of Ram Mehar (supra) which holds that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act would not prevail over the provisions of the DLR Act in view of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. It is also argued that Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act was repealed only w.e.f 9.9.2005 but the widow Smt. Chhotto died in this case on 8.2.2004 before the repeal of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and consequently, and only when succession to her estate opens because the estate of the widow Smt. Chhotto remained a life estate and she was not entitled to execute the relinquishment deed of the suit property in favour of the defendant.

(3.) THE issue in the present case, in my opinion, is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the bunch of cases with lead case bearing no.LPA No.92/2005 titled as Chand Ram and Anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. decided on 9.8.2012. The Division Bench of this Court in Chand Ram's case (supra)referred to the earlier judgment of Division Bench in the case of Ram Mehar (supra) and also the two Supreme Court's judgments in the cases of Ram Jivan Vs. Smt. Phoola AIR 1976 SC 844, and Bajaya Vs. Gopikabai (1978) 2 SCC 542. The Division Bench in the case of Chand Ram's case (supra) reconciled the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bajaya (supra) (in the context to Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954) and Ram Jivan (supra) (passed with respect to UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950) and it was held that so far as DLR Act is concerned, what would apply is the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bajaya (supra). The relevant paras of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Chand Ram (supra) read as under: -