SAMPURAN SINGH Vs. LABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sham Singh died on 25th August, 1927, leaving behind him his son's widow Gulab but no children of his own or of his son. Sampuran Singh, the plaintiff-appellant, is the son of his brother Bhagwana. Labh Singh, a son of gulab's brother, is the second defendant while Gulab is the first defendant. According to the case of Sampuran Singh, a day before his death, that is, on 24th August, 1927, Sham Singh gifted to him his proprietary interest in certain land and his interest as a mortgagee in certain other land. It may be mentioned here that the suit land is the land allotted in lieu of Sham Singh's land as a result of Consolidation of Holdings. The gift in his favour, according to sampuran Singh, was effected by an application presented by Sham Singh on 24th August, 1927, to a Revenue Officer for mutation in favour of Sampuran singh. Unusually promptly the Patwari made the necessary entries that very day and the Revenue Officer sanctioned the same on 9th October, 1927. Within a few days, as soon as she came to know of it, Gulab instituted a suit challenging the truth and validity of the gift. The suit ended in a compromise. Gulab's suit for possession of land of which Sham Singh was owner was decreed. Gulab gave up her right in the land in which Sham Singh had a mortgagee's interest in favour of Sampuran Singh and in respect of that land the suit was dismissed. In turn, Sampuran Singh gave to Gulab a certain land of which he was the owner. It was then recited that all the land given to Gulab was given so that she might enjoy it for her life and maintain herself. According to Sampuran Singh, Gulab had thus agreed not to alienate the property but in violation of the terms of the compromise she made a gift of her entire property to Labh Singh. Sampuran Singh therefore filed the suit out of which the second appeal arises for a declaration that the gift was void and ineffective. The learned trial Judge granted a decree declaring that the gift deed executed by gulab in favour of Labh Singh was void end ineffective as against the reversionary right of the plaintiff to the extent of 1211/1999 share in the suit-land, he having estimated the proportion of the value of the land covered by the compromise to the value of the total holding of Sham Singh at 1211/1999. Both Gulab and Sampuran Singh preferred aoceals. The lower Appellate Court allowed Gulab's appeal and dismissed Sampuran Singh's appeal. The Lower appellate Court held that Gulab's interest in the land had become enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Sampuran singh has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) SHRI Ashok Bhan, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that under the compromise decree, the interest of Gulab in the land was limited to a life interest and that under Section 14 (2), the interest remained a life interest even after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act. He urged that it was section 14 (2) and not Section 14 (1) that was applicable to the facts of the case. The learned counsel relied on Seetharamayya v. Peraiah, AIR 1964 Andh pra 545 and Mst. Kirpo v. Bakhtawar Singh, AIR 1964 Punj 474. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that under the compromise decree, Gulab did not acquire any new rights and what happened was that her pre-existing right was recognised. If that be so, he urged that it was Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act that was applicable and Gulab's interest, therefore, stood enlarged on the passing of the Hindu Succession Act. He relied on Badri Pershad v. Smt. Kanso Devi, AIR 1970 SC 1963 and Gadam Reddayya v. Venkataraju, AIR 1965 Andh Pra 66 and Nand Singh v. Nachhattar Singh, air 1975 Punj and Har 45.

(3.) IT was found by the Lower Appellate Court that in the matter of succession to property, the parties were governed by custom and that according to the customary law prevailing in Ambala District, the pre-deceased son's widow was entitled to succeed in preference to collaterals. Therefore, on the death of Sham singh, Gulab, the widow of his pre-deceased's son was his heir. Gulab of course had only a life interest in the property to which she succeeded. Sampuran Singh set up a gift in his favour from Sham Singh, but under the compromise Gulab's right was recognised. Her suit for possession of the land in which Sham Singh was the owner was decreed. She gave up her right in the land in which Sham singh had a mortgagee's interest only in favour of Sampuran Singh and she received from Sampuran Singh certain land of which Sampuran Singh was the owner. Now, it was recited in the compromise decree that all the land given to gulab was given to her so that she might enjoy it for her life and maintain herself. There was no express prohibition against alienation of property by gulab, nor were there any other words restricting her power of alienation or enjoyment. The question is, whether Section 14 (1) or Section 14 (2) of the hindu Succession Act is applicable to the facts of the case.