GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. HAR GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration brought by one Gurcharan Singh that the gift of agricultural land made by his uncle Gurdit Singh in favour of Hargopal Singh was invalid according to the custom and did not affect the Plaintiff's reversionary rights.

(2.) GURDIT Singh donor had two brothers, Gagan Singh and Mal Singh. The Plaintiff is the son of Gagan Singh. Mal Singh had two sons, Hargopal Singh donee and Hardyal Singh. Gurdit Singh who was issueless gifted his land to Hargopal Singh on 6/3/1999 Samvat, and made a report to this effect to the Patwari of the village. The mutation in Hargopal Singh's favour was attested by a revenue officer on 26/2/2000. The Plaintiff brought the suit on 10/12/2001. Originally he claimed possession of his share of the land but later on he converted his suit into one for declaration. The sum total of the donee's allegations as contained in his two written statements was that the donor had brought him up like a son and that the gift having been made on account of the services that the donee had been rendering to him was valid. The issues framed by the trial court were: (i) whether the property was ancestral, and (ii) whether the gift was valid. Both the issues were found in favour of the Plaintiff and the suit was decreed. On appeal the District Judge upheld the finding of the trial court as regards the ancestral character of the property but found the second issue in favour of the donee Defendant and dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff's second appeal to this; court was dismissed by a learned Judge in Chambers but he was allowed to prefer an appeal to a Division Bench. Hence this appeal.

(3.) A number of rulings are cited in support of the above opinion. It is not necessary to refer to all of them, but some may be quoted with advantage. 'Narain Singh v. Gurmukh Singh', 1894 Pun Re 116 (A) was a case of gift made by a Gill Jat of Tehsil Dasuhya, District Hoshiarpur. The donee and the Plaintiffs who questioned the gift were equally descended from the grand -father of the donor. The learned Judge (Plowden S.J.) while agreeing with the Divisional Judge that there was sufficient justification of the gift to render it valid by custom remarked as follows: