Rights of the father to sell the ancestral property
Kehar Singh
Vs.
Nachittar Singh
20-08-2018

Facts

  1.  Pritam Singh was the owner of the land. He sold the land in 1960 by registered deed to Tata Sigh and Ajit Singh for Rs. 19,500/-. Both were placed in possession of the land. In 1964, son of Pritam Singh, Kehar Singh filed a civil suit against Tara Singh.
  2. The suit land continued to be an ancestral property of the family of which the plaintiff is the member and the family is governed by Punjab customs which apply to the sale of family property.
  3. The plaintiff has a share in the suit land along with his father as one of the co-parcener, and the father has no right to sell the property without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has never given the consent for sale of the suit land.
  4. There was no legal necessity of the family which could permit Pritam Singh to sell the suit land. The suit land and the rights of the suit land are to be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Customs.
  5. The plaintiff prayed for the relief of declaration that the sale made by his father be declared as non-binding on the plaintiff. Secondly, the sale in question is void and does not convey any right, title and interest in the favor of defendants.
  6. The defendants in their statement contested that, the suit land is not ancestral and parties are not governed by any customs. The sale deed was executed for consideration and for the legal necessities of the family to pay the debt and for improving the farming and the purchase was bona fide.

Held
Trail Court
The trail court after hearing both the parties and examining the evidences held that the suit land was an ancestral property and there was no legal necessity to sell the suit land. The aggrieved parties filed the appeal to the first appellant authority.
The first appellant authority held that, the land was an ancestral property of the family and the parties to the suit are governed by the customs. Further the court held that the defendants were able to prove the legal necessity for the family partially to the extent of Rs. 7399/-. The reversioners of the Pritam Singh were entitled to the possession of land after the demise of Pritam Singh on payment of Rs. 7399/- and the sale in question would not be binding on their reversionary interest.

High Court
Defendants feeling aggrieved from the decision, filed second appeal before the High Court, during the pendency, Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973 came into force. The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in the light of amendment in the Custom Act, and held that the plaintiff had no right to challenge the alienation made by the father under the custom prevailing at the relevant time.
The plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was disposed off on the ground that the Custom act is retrospective in nature. The Court further held that there is no doubt that the suit land is an ancestral property and the father as the karta of the family had right to sell the suit land and there too exists a legal necessity which are firstly, to pay the debt and secondly, the agricultural land needs improvement, therefore, the same is binding upon the plaintiff.

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is of opinion that the reasoning and the conclusion made by the High court are just and proper and held that, the court is of view taken by High Court and calling for no interference.