Supreme Court Upholds Family Arrangement in Property Dispute: Dalip Kaur vs. Ram Kishan (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 27, 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a family arrangement made to avoid future disputes be upheld even if it involves a limited owner gifting property? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning a property dispute in Punjab. This case revolves around a gift deed executed by a mother in favor of her daughters and whether it constitutes a valid family arrangement, binding on the daughters and their heirs. The bench comprised of Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the judgment authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

Harnam Singh was the original owner of the property. He passed away on November 12, 1934, leaving behind his wife, Prem Kaur, and three daughters: Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur, and Raj Kaur. Following Harnam Singh’s death, Prem Kaur inherited the property as per the prevailing custom of the area. On September 19, 1951, Prem Kaur executed a gift deed, transferring the property in equal 1/3rd shares to her three daughters. Basant Kaur, one of the daughters, passed away on March 25, 1975, leaving behind her husband, Ram Kishan, who inherited her share through a will. Ram Kishan then filed a suit for possession of the 1/3rd share of the property based on the will. The other two daughters, Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur, contested the suit, claiming that upon Basant Kaur’s death, the property should revert to the heirs of their father, Harnam Singh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially decreed the suit in favor of Ram Kishan. However, the first appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana then set aside the first appellate court’s judgment and affirmed the trial court’s decree, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the customary Hindu law prevailing in the state of Punjab during the relevant period, which modifies the Mitakshara law on certain points. The court also considered the concept of a limited estate held by a widow or mother and the validity of alienations made by such limited owners. The Supreme Court referred to the commentary in Mulla’s Hindu Law, specifically sections 191 and 192, which discuss the concept of a reversioner consenting to an alienation and family arrangements.

Arguments

The appellants (daughters of Harnam Singh) argued that upon the death of their sister, Basant Kaur, the property should devolve on the heirs of their father, Harnam Singh, as they are the only surviving heirs. They claimed that the gift by their mother, Prem Kaur, was not valid and that they, as reversioners, were entitled to the property.

The respondent (husband of Basant Kaur) argued that Basant Kaur was the absolute owner of the 1/3rd share of the property by virtue of the gift deed and her will, and therefore, he was entitled to the property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the trial Court and the High Court were justified in concluding that Basant Kaur was entitled to 1/3rd share in the property of Prem Kaur, and consequently, whether the plaintiff, being the husband of Basant Kaur, is entitled to the said 1/3rd share.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, which had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, Ram Kishan. The Court found that the gift by Prem Kaur was essentially a family arrangement intended to avoid future disputes.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the fact that the gift by Prem Kaur was a family arrangement intended to avoid future disputes. The court emphasized that all three daughters were beneficiaries of this arrangement, and they accepted it without objection. The Court also leaned in favor of family arrangements to bring harmony and do justice to all members of the family. The court also noted that the alienation by way of gift by the mother in favor of the three daughters as far back as 1951, under which all daughters were given equal shares in the property, and by which the mother relinquished all her rights in favor of the three daughters, was permissible under the prevailing customary law.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Family arrangements, even if made by a limited owner, are generally upheld by the courts to avoid future disputes.
• ✓ Reversioners who are parties to a family arrangement are bound by it and cannot later challenge the alienation.
• ✓ Customary laws, as they existed during the relevant period, are considered in property disputes.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a family arrangement made by a limited owner, when accepted by the reversioners, is binding on them and their heirs. This decision reinforces the principle that courts favor family arrangements to maintain harmony and avoid future disputes. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case clarifies the application of the principle in the context of customary Hindu law in Punjab.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the validity of family arrangements and the binding nature of such arrangements on the parties involved. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts favor family arrangements to maintain harmony and avoid future disputes, particularly in the context of property disputes.