Supreme Court Clarifies Coparcenary Property Rights: Arshnoor Singh vs. Harpal Kaur (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 1, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 678

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a father sell ancestral property without the consent of his son? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a dispute over the sale of agricultural land. This judgment clarifies the nature of coparcenary property under Hindu law and the rights of coparceners, particularly concerning property inherited from paternal ancestors. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra, with Justice Indu Malhotra authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute in Village Khangarh, District Ferozepur, Punjab. Lal Singh owned agricultural land, which was inherited by his son, Inder Singh, in 1951. In 1964, Inder Singh partitioned the property among his three sons: Gurcharan Singh, Dharam Singh, and Swaran Singh. Subsequently, the three sons transferred a one-fourth share back to their father, Inder Singh, for his sustenance. Inder Singh passed away in 1970, and his share was inherited by his heirs, including his widow, three sons, and daughter.

The dispute concerns the property that came to the share of Dharam Singh, which was agricultural land. Dharam Singh had a son, Arshnoor Singh (the Appellant), born on August 22, 1985. Dharam Singh purportedly sold the entire suit property to Harpal Kaur (Respondent No. 1) via two registered Sale Deeds dated September 1, 1999, for a stated consideration of Rs. 4,87,500. However, Dharam Singh and Harpal Kaur admitted that no money was exchanged, and the amount was only for registration purposes. Dharam Singh later married Harpal Kaur on September 29, 1999.

Arshnoor Singh, after becoming a major on August 22, 2003, filed a suit on November 23, 2004, against his father, Dharam Singh, and Harpal Kaur, seeking a declaration that the property was coparcenary property and that the sale deeds were illegal. During the pendency of the suit, Harpal Kaur sold the property to Kulwant Singh and Jung Bahadur (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) on October 30, 2007.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Civil Judge, Ferozepur, decreed the suit in favor of Arshnoor Singh, holding that the suit property was ancestral coparcenary property and that the Sale Deeds were illegal. The court noted that Dharam Singh admitted to executing the Sale Deeds without any monetary consideration, as Harpal Kaur had insisted on the transfer as a precondition for marriage. The Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissed the appeal filed by the Respondents, upholding the Trial Court’s decision.

However, the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal (RSA) filed by the Respondents, setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The High Court held that the coparcenary property ceased to exist after Inder Singh partitioned the property in 1964, and that Arshnoor Singh had no right to challenge the Sale Deeds on the ground of non-payment of consideration. The High Court also noted that the Appellant had not produced Jamabandis for the years 1957-58 till 1970-71.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the concept of coparcenary property under Hindu law. The Supreme Court refers to Mulla’s commentary on Hindu Law, which states that property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father is ancestral property. The essential feature of ancestral property is that the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire an interest in it by birth.

The Court also discusses the impact of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Before 1956, property inherited from paternal ancestors was considered coparcenary property, where male descendants up to three degrees below the inheritor had an equal right. Post-1956, if a person inherits a self-acquired property from his paternal ancestors, it becomes his self-acquired property and does not remain coparcenary property. However, if the succession opened before 1956, the property remains coparcenary property.

The judgment also refers to the concept of a Karta’s power to sell coparcenary property, which is subject to restrictions. Such sales must be for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. The onus of proving legal necessity lies with the alienee.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The suit property was coparcenary property in which the Appellant had become a coparcener by birth.
• Dharam Singh could not have alienated the coparcenary property without legal necessity or benefit to the estate.
• The Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007, executed by Respondent No. 1 in favor of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 during the pendency of the suit, was hit by lis pendens and is therefore illegal, null, and void.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The suit was filed by the Appellant in collusion with his father, Dharam Singh, due to marital discord between Dharam Singh and Respondent No. 1.
• The suit property was not coparcenary property when the two Sale Deeds were executed on 01.09.1999. Inder Singh’s property ceased to be coparcenary property after it was divided via a decree dated 04.11.1964. Reliance was placed on Uttam v. Saubhag Singh [ (2016) 4 SCC 68 ].
• The Appellant had no locus to file the suit on the ground that no sale consideration was paid by Respondent No. 1 to Dharam Singh. Only the executant of the Sale Deeds, Dharam Singh, could have filed such a suit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the suit property was coparcenary property or self-acquired property of Dharam Singh.
2. The validity of the Sale Deeds executed on 01.09.1999 by Dharam Singh in favor of Respondent No. 1, and the subsequent Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Respondent No. 1 in favor of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krisha Prasad & Ors. [(2018) 7 SCC 646] – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that property inherited by a male Hindu from his paternal ancestors is ancestral property, and the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire an interest in it by birth.
• Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar [(1987) 1 SCC 204] – Supreme Court of India: The Court cited this case to explain that under Hindu Law, a son gets a share in his father’s property by birth and becomes part of the coparcenary. However, this position has been affected by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, for properties inherited after the Act came into force.
• Valliammai Achi v. Nagappa Chettiar and Ors. [AIR 1967 SC 1153] – Supreme Court of India: This case was used to support the view that the share a co-sharer obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issues, who take an interest in it by birth.
• Rani & Anr. v. Santa Bala Debnath & Ors. [(1970) 3 SCC 722] – Supreme Court of India: The Court referred to this case to explain the concept of legal necessity for the sale of coparcenary property, stating that the onus is on the alienee to prove legal necessity or benefit to the estate.
• T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal & Ors. [(2010) 14 SCC 370] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain the doctrine of lis pendens, which states that if a property is transferred during the pendency of a suit and the transferor is held to have no right or title, the transferee will not have any title to the property.
• Vijay A. Mittal & Ors. v. Kulwant Rai (Dead) through LRs & Ors. [(2019) 3 SCC 520] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to reiterate the restrictions on the power of a Karta to sell coparcenary property.

Books Relied Upon:

• Mulla on Hindu Law (22nd Edition): The Court relied on Mulla’s commentary to explain the nature of ancestral property, succession under Mitakshara law, and the devolution of share acquired on partition.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krisha Prasad & Ors. [(2018) 7 SCC 646]* to reiterate that property inherited from paternal ancestors is ancestral property and the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire an interest in it by birth. The Court followed Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar [(1987) 1 SCC 204]* to explain that a son gets a share in his father’s property by birth, and Valliammai Achi v. Nagappa Chettiar and Ors. [AIR 1967 SC 1153]* to support that the share obtained on partition of ancestral property remains ancestral for male issues. The Court also followed Rani & Anr. v. Santa Bala Debnath & Ors. [(1970) 3 SCC 722]* to explain the concept of legal necessity for the sale of coparcenary property, and T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal & Ors. [(2010) 14 SCC 370]* to explain the doctrine of lis pendens. The Court cited Vijay A. Mittal & Ors. v. Kulwant Rai (Dead) through LRs & Ors. [(2019) 3 SCC 520]* to reiterate the restrictions on the power of a Karta to sell coparcenary property. The Court also relied on Mulla’s commentary on Hindu Law to explain the nature of ancestral property and succession under Mitakshara law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The nature of coparcenary property under Hindu law, particularly the fact that property inherited from paternal ancestors remains coparcenary property for male descendants up to three degrees below the inheritor.
• The fact that the Sale Deeds were executed without any consideration, which indicated the absence of legal necessity or benefit to the estate.
• The doctrine of lis pendens, which makes any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit void.
• The rights of a coparcener to challenge the sale of coparcenary property by the Karta without legal necessity.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal principles governing coparcenary property and the restrictions on the power of a Karta to alienate such property. The factual aspects of the case, such as the absence of consideration in the Sale Deeds, were also considered, but the primary emphasis was on the legal framework.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Property inherited by a male Hindu from his paternal ancestors is coparcenary property, and his male descendants up to three degrees below him have an equal right in it by birth if the succession opened before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• A Karta cannot sell coparcenary property without legal necessity or benefit to the estate.
• Sale Deeds executed without consideration are invalid.
• Any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
• A coparcener has the locus to challenge the sale of coparcenary property by the Karta without legal necessity.

This judgment reinforces the rights of coparceners in ancestral property and clarifies the restrictions on the power of a Karta to alienate such property. It will likely impact future cases involving similar disputes over the sale of coparcenary property.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the name of the Appellant, Arshnoor Singh, be recorded in the Jamabandis as the owner of the suit property.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that property inherited by a male Hindu from his paternal ancestors is coparcenary property, and his male descendants up to three degrees below him have an equal right in it by birth if the succession opened before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This judgment reaffirms the position of law regarding coparcenary property and clarifies the limitations on the power of a Karta to alienate such property. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but this judgment reinforces and clarifies existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the suit property was coparcenary property, and the Sale Deeds executed by Dharam Singh were invalid as they were without consideration and without legal necessity. The Court also held that the subsequent Sale Deed was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The Court directed that the Appellant’s name be recorded as the owner of the suit property. This judgment clarifies the rights of coparceners and the restrictions on the power of a Karta to sell coparcenary property.