AUTAR SINGH Vs. KHETA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Maghar Singh sold 20 kanals 11 marlas of agricultural land to respondent Kheta Singh in the year 1940. Gurmukh Singh appellant No. 4, a brother of Maghar Singh filed a declaratory suit under the custom that the sale having been made without legal necessity would not affect his reversionary rights. There is no dispute that the suit was decreed and the declaration sought for was granted. But after the death of Maghar Singh, appellants Nos. 1 to 3 who are sons and daughter of Bhagwan Kaur daughter of Maghar Singh vendor filed the present suit for possession of the suit land. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but its judgment was reversed, on appeal, by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgment dated the 18th April, 1969 on the ground that the declaratory decree enures only for the benefit of reversioners and the plaintiffs though heirs under the Hindu Succession Act are not reversioners under the custom and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the said decree. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs have come up in this second appeal.

(2.) The question as to whether a declaratory decree declaring alienation void against reversionary rights under the custom enures for the benefit of the persons who are though heirs under the Hindu Succession Act but not reversioners under the custom has since been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Giani Ram and Others v. Ramji Lal and Others, 1969 AIR(SC) 1144According to this decision the effect of the declaratory decree is that by the sale interest conveyed in favour of the alienee is to enure during the lifetime of the alienator only and the property alienated reverts to the estate of the alienor at the point of his death. Consequently, all persons who would, but for the alienation, have taken the estate will be entitled to inherit the same. The law laid down in Giani Ram's case was approved and has again been reiterated by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Teg Singh and Others v. Charan Singh and Another, 1977 AIR(SC) 1699

(3.) In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions noticed above, this appeal must succeed and is hereby allowed. The impugned decree and judgment are set aside and the suit decreed but without any order as to costs.