This article is written by Ganesh. R, which contains a detailed analysis of the case Gurnam Singh vs. Pritam Singh (2010) explaining the facts, issues, and ruling of it, also it highlights the division and inheritance of property in a joint Hindu family and their legal right. Further to it, the article explains the importance of evidence and witness testimonies during the course of suit. 

Introduction

Inheritance is an inherent and one of the most important concepts of property laws in India. The main concept of the article revolves around determining the nature of the property in question, because there were many legal problems, which included devolutions of joint Hindu family property among the legal heirs and also checking the retrospective effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, plays a vital role in the legislation of India that governs the succession of property among the Hindu community. This act introduced  the concept of equal distribution of property among the sons and daughters of a joint Hindu family. Also, it aims to give a clear standard order for distribution so that the property stays within the lineage. As an old proverb goes, “a just inheritance passes through the generations.” 

The Act ensures there is an equitable and fair distribution of property among the legal heirs. If we speak of the distribution among Hindus before the enactment of the said act, it was governed by traditions and customary laws that varied from place to place. This type of practice mostly favoured men of the family, and women of the family got no rights in the ancestral property, so to provide equal opportunity and rights to both men and women, the Hindu Succession Act was enacted. This case mainly falls under the concept of inheritance and distribution of property among their family, but there were many legal problems that arose in the devolution process. To resolve the dispute the court made many crucial opinions and rulings that can be used as precedent in later cases. Therefore, this is a case that discusses details about the inheritance of property in a Hindu joint family estate. 

Download Now

Details of the case

Name of the case: Gurnam Singh vs Pritam Singh & Ors, 2010

Citation: AIR 2010 (NOC) 983

Name of the appellant: Gurnam Singh 

Name of the respondent: Pritam Singh & Ors

Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

Name of the court: High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

Date of judgement: 11/05/2010

Facts of the case 

In this case, the plaintiff and defendant were members of a joint Hindu family. Badan Singh, the plaintiff’s father, acted as the Karta (head) of the family. The plaintiff claimed that they were co-owners of the property in question with the defendant. The defendants in this case were minors, so the suit was filed on their behalf by their father, Inder Singh. The plaintiff claimed the property in question was initially inherited by Badan Singh, Chajja Singh, and Nagahia Singh upon the death of their father, Ralla Singh. Since Chajja Singh and Nagahia Singh were unmarried and died without any heirs, the whole property came into the hands of Badan Singh. Therefore, they claimed that the property was ancestral and not self-acquired. Also, they submitted a pedigree table, which indicated the lineage as follows: 

  • Ralla Singh 
  • Sons: Badan Singh, Chajja Singh, and Nagahia Singh
  • Badan Singh’s sons: Gurdial Singh, Inder Singh, and others

Badan Singh was the Karta of the joint Hindu family, and he relied solely on the income from their ancestral property, which was located in village Rajewal, Tehsil Samrala, district Ludhiana. Also, Badan Singh had used the income from the ancestral property to purchase  land in village Hussainpura, and he registered the land in his own name as well as in the names of Chajja Singh and Nagahia Singh due to its cheap rates. Among the five sons of Badan Singh, defendant number four, Inder Singh, had served in the army for nine years, and he chose to reside in village Rajewal upon his retirement in 1947. Gurnam Singh, Inder Singh, and others settled on this land alongside Badan Singh. 

After the death of Badan Singh on July 21, 1977, at the age of 82, in Badan Singh’s final years, he was of unsound mind and was unduly manipulated by Inder Singh, defendant No. 4, and Gurdial Singh, husband of defendant No. 3, to form a sale deed transferring the property to defendants No. 1 to 3 — Inder Singh’s minor sons and Gurdial Singh’s wife – for a consideration of Rs 1 lakh.

The sale deed was done under manipulation, and it did not fulfil the legal requirements of the sale. Furthermore, there was no other financial liability or necessity to justify the sale of the disputed ancestral property. Also, there was a lack of consideration and legal necessity in the execution of the sale deed. 

The defendants in the suit, including Inder Singh, Gurdial Singh, and others, said that the sale deed fulfilled the legal requirement and was done with the sound consent of Badan Singh. They also denied the existence of a joint Hindu family estate and disproved the nature of the property. Instead, they claimed that the property was a self-acquired property that was bought by Badan Singh, Inder Singh, Chajja Singh, and Gurdial Singh. Furthermore, they claimed that the consideration mentioned in the sale deed was fully paid, and the sale was done for legitimate reasons and fulfilled a legal necessity.

Moreover, before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Badan Singh was controlled by the customary law of Punjab regarding alienation, succession, and other matters. The suit was filed before the court was barred by Section 7 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920. 

This case went through proceedings in the trial and lower courts and gave way to several crucial decisions on the matter of determining the nature of the property that was sold or inherited before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. 

The present case is the appellant’s regular second appeal against the judgement of the lower court decreed on 1st March, 1984 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for the shares held by Badan Singh challenging the sale deed dated 6th October, 1975 was held to be void on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud.

Issues raised

  • Whether the property in question was a joint Hindu property?
  • Whether the suit was maintainable in the present form?

Arguments of the parties

Appellant

The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, argued that the property in village Rajewal was a joint Hindu family’s property. By this, they argued that any income acquired by the joint family property should also be considered as a joint Hindu coparcenary property. The appellant mentioned the judgement of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Binod Jena and Anr. vs. Abdul Hamid Khan and Ors (1974), which states that if there was no proper concrete evidence on division, the presumption was that every Hindu family remains joint in worship and estate. This verdict made the argument stronger in the case of brothers. The plaintiff claimed that the property in question must be treated as a joint Hindu family property and not as self-acquired property. They also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the law by considering the property in question as self-acquired, taking no notice of the property that it was acquired by the labour of joint Hindu family members, which should be considered as Hindu joint family property, in which the plaintiff has a legal right by birth.

The appellant’s arguments found balanced support in the verdict of the Orissa High Court asserting that the property acquired by the members of the joint Hindu family will be considered as joint Hindu family property, even without a joint family nucleus.

Respondent  

The respondent claimed that the lower court rightly found that the property in question was a self-acquired property and not a joint Hindu family property. They specifically highlighted that the property was bought with Rs. 8,000 received as consideration money and income from cultivating land. Also, the respondent claimed that the Hindu Succession Act does not retrospectively convert self-acquired property into coparcenary property. To support the argument, the respondent mentions the case of Puran Chand & Ors. vs. Gurcharan Singh & Anr. (1967), in which the court said that the Act does not nullify the past transaction or make changes in the property status, and in the case of Sant Ram vs. Parma Nand(1977), the court highlighted that there was no presumption of Hindu joint family property if there was no proper concrete evidence. They concluded their argument by stating that even without concrete evidence showing the property in question was joint Hindu family property, was of no use unless the appellant provides evidence to support their argument. 

Laws/concepts involved in Gurnam Singh vs. Pritam Singh & others (2010)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act

Section 4 defines coparcenary property and ancestral property under Hindu law. It states that the coparcenary property includes both the ancestral and acquired property by the survivors of the joint Hindu family with the ancestral property. Which was helpful in determining the status of the property in village Hussainpura, whether it falls under the ancestral property or coparcenary property. 

Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act

Section 6 plays a vital role in determining the delegation of coparcenary property between the members of joint Hindu families. It lays out the steps and procedures for delegating the property to the surviving coparceners. It provides that upon the death of the Karta (head) or male Hindu, his interest will be transferred to the survivors of the joint Hindu family or coparceners. This section helps explain how property devolves in a Hindu joint family governed under Mitakshara law, specifically the ancestral property. 

Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act

Section 14 deals with the privilege of the Hindu female who holds property. It says that any property in the name of a Hindu female, either before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her totally as a full owner. This section played a crucial role during the argument by the respondent in determining the rights of Isha Kaur, the daughter of Badan Singh.

Section 221 of Hindu Law (Mulla’s Principle)

Mulla’s principle of law deals with property that was acquired by the members of a joint Hindu family with combined efforts. It traces the legal status of such property, whether it will be considered a joint property of acquirers or a joint Hindu family property. This section plays a vital role in determining the nature of ownership and the legal rights of the heirs or survivors of the property. This section helps in determining if the property in dispute was self-acquired or falls under the joint Hindu family property. 

Relevant judgements referred in the case

Binod Jena and Anr. vs. Abdul Hamid Khan and ors (1975) 

This case revolved around the dispute over a joint Hindu family property where the appellant claimed a share of the property on the basis of jointness of the Hindu family. 

The issue raised was whether the property in question should be considered as a joint Hindu family property in the absence of proof of division? 

The Orissa High Court declared that during the absence of proof of division there would be a presumption that every Hindu family was joint in food, worship, and estate. This case strengthened the appellant’s argument in determining the jointness of the Hindu family in absence of proof of division. It supported the contention that the property acquired by the Hindu family members combinedly should be considered as joint Hindu family property. 

Puran Chand & Ors. vs. Gurcharan Singh & Anr. (1967)

This case dealt with the applicability of the property acquired before the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The issue raised was whether the property acquired before the enactment of the Act would be considered as self-acquired property or joint Hindu family property?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not act retrospectively and it would not affect the status of the property acquired before the enactment of the said Act. The properties would remain self-acquired unless it was proven.  This case was cited by the respondent to support his statement regarding the property acquired before the enactment of Hindu Succession Act,1956. They claimed that the property would remain as self-acquired and not as a joint Hindu family property.

Sant Ram vs. Paramanand (1977)

This case dealt with the nature of property held by the father and status of the joint Hindu family property.

The issue raised was whether the property in the name of the father would automatically become joint family property ?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the property in the hands of the father would not be considered automatically as a joint Hindu family property. The burden of proof rested on the person asserting jointness. This case was cited by the respondent during the argument to determine whether the property in dispute should be treated as joint family property or self-acquired property.

Judgement in Gurnam Singh vs. Pritam Singh & others (2010)

In this case, the central issue revolves around determining whether the property in dispute, purchased with the funds contributed by the family members, should be treated as joint Hindu family property or self-acquired property by an individual family member. Also, the court was tasked with checking whether the lower court correctly applied the law in dismissing the appellant’s suit in accordance with the ownership of the land. The court upheld the decision of the lower court, and highlighted the status of the property as self-acquired property rather than joint Hindu family property. This decision was pronounced due to a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the property was a joint Hindu family property, based on this, the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.

Rationale behind this judgement

The rationale behind the verdict in this case rests on many legal principles and the evidence presented. The main issue of the case revolves around the dispute of ownership and encroachment on the property. The plaintiff argued that the action of encroachment infringes upon his property rights and access to his land, which had been allotted by Badan Singh. Also, he argued that the property must be considered a joint Hindu family property rather than a self-acquired property. The Trial Court carefully examined the facts and evidence present in the court and gave a verdict in 2010 that favoured the defendant side. The court held that the property in question was a self-acquired property because, due to a lack of evidence, the court presumed that the property was a self-acquired property. During the argument by the respondent they highlighted a case, Sant Ram vs. Parma Nand, in which the court held that if there was a lack of evidence, then the property will not be assumed or presumed to be a joint Hindu family property. also pointed out that the property was transferred before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, so it will fall under the ambit of Punjab customary law. Therefore, the Hindu Succession Act will not have a retrospective effect to change the nature of the property, and the court, after examining the arguments and the provisions cited, will conclude that the property was a self-acquired property.   Dissatisfied with the outcome, the plaintiff appealed again in 2014 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The court held that the decisions of the lower courts were evaluated correctly upon reviewing the evidence and the court finding. So, the court upheld the decision of the lower court and pronounced the same judgement as the property in question as a self-acquired property rather than as a Hindu joint family property. This case highlights the crucial role of the judiciary in protecting the property rights of individuals in the event of any infringement. 

Analysis of Gurnam Singh vs. Pritam Singh & others (2010) 

This case mainly revolves around the issue of ownership of the property, which was inherited by Badan Singh from his father, Ralla Singh. The plaintiff argued that the property was a joint Hindu family property, and the defendant argued that the property was a self-acquired property. During the last days of Badan Singh, Inder Singh made a sale deed with Badan Singh on the disputed property, which led to the suit and conflict between the members of the joint Hindu family. If we see the procedural history of this case first, the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Gurnam Singh, holding that there was no concrete evidence to prove the disputed property was a joint Hindu family property. Further to it, the first appellate court and the High Court both upheld the Trial Court’s judgement. This judgement was given after a careful examination of the evidence and testimonies of witnesses. Also, the property was inherited by the members of the family before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, during the time of inheritance, they followed the law of Punjab customary laws, from which the respondent took the argument that the Hindu Succession Act will not have a retrospective effect, so the status of the property will remain as self-acquired property. The judgement of this case was considered and serves as a precedent for future disputes involving the division of property between the joint Hindu family. In this case, it was highlighted that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not have a retrospective effect in its operation, but Section 14(1) of the act has one exception in which they confer absolute rights to the property acquired by a female Hindu even before the act came into force. 

Analysis of Punjab customary laws and Hindu Succession Act,1956 in the case

In the case of Gurnam Singh vs. Pritam Singh (2010), the court had a crucial duty to figure out the complexity between the Punjab customary law and the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 to resolve property disputes. Historically, Punjab customary law was the source law that governs the property rights among agricultural communities, emphasising male ancestry and collective family property. Under this law, if any alienation was done on family property then,  family members consent is one of the essential requirements for it. The plaintiff argued that the alienation of the property from Badan Singh to the defendants was done fraudulently and did not fulfil the essential requirement of family member consent under Punjab customary law. In reply to this, the defendant claimed that the property was self-acquired by Badan Singh and sold for legal necessity. They have given evidence to prove that the property was bought by Badan Singh from income unrelated to the ancestral property, which grants Badan Singh the right to sell the property without the consent of the family member under Punjab customary law. The court examines these claims to determine whether the property was bought by Badan Singh with the income from ancestral property. Later, after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, there were lots of changes, especially in the matters of property inheritance and division of property in Hindu families were made and they mainly aimed to abolish gender inequality in inheritance and introduce the concept of coparcenary, in which both son and daughter had equal rights to ancestral property. In this case, the court had to determine whether the Punjab customary law prevails over the Hindu Succession Act’s provisions. The court concluded that the property in dispute was a self-acquired property and not a joint Hindu family property. The court also highlights that the sale deed executed by Badan Singh was valid as it was done for legal necessity. This judgement focuses on the transitional nature of the property law in regions that had followed customary traditions in matters of inheritance and ownership of family property. 

Conclusion  

The case of Gurnam Singh vs. Pritam Singh (2010), stands as a landmark judgement in Indian legal history, pinpointing several legal principles and judicial functions. This case highlights the matter of the inheritance of property in a joint Hindu family. Also, it mentioned the applicability of legal principles governing inheritance and ownership of joint Hindu family property. The verdict clarifies the importance of documentary evidence and witness testimonies in settling the disputes. Furthermore, the ruling made clear the need for clarity and consistency in the legal argument and evidence presented in the course of the case. The main issue, which led to several legal principles, was the determination of the status of the property. They discussed that the Hindu Succession Act will not give effect retrospectively to the status of the property that was bought before the enactment. In this case, the petitioner argues that the property inquisition must be considered as joint Hindu family property, but the respondent argues that the property was a self-acquired property and falls under the ambit of Punjab customary law rather than the Hindu Succession Act. This case was ruled in favour of the respondent, stating that the property in dispute was a self-acquired property. Later, during the appeal in 2014, the High Court upheld the ruling of the lower court, and the bench was satisfied with the examination of evidence and witness testimonies of the lower courts, so they continued by staying with the lower court decision on pronouncing the property in dispute as self-acquired property rather than joint Hindu family property. This case was considered a landmark judgement for many cases with similar facts, and it additionally highlighted the role of the judiciary in resolving disputes related to inheritance and ownership of property. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How does this case define the role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law?

This case highlights the judiciary’s role in maintaining the rule of law by emphasising the importance of impartiality, a fair examination of evidence, and court findings in the course of the suit. It also highlights the importance of the judiciary in resolving disputes that were rooted before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. 

What are the challenges faced by the court in reaching the decision?

The court faced several challenges in reaching its decision. The main issue was determining the nature of the property, that was, whether the property was self-acquired or joint Hindu family property. Extensive examination of evidence and witness testimonies held a lot to conclude the ruling, and despite these challenges, the court delivered a well reasoned judgement . 

What was the primary issue in the case of Gurnam Singh vs. Pritam Singh?

The primary issue in this case was to determine whether the property in question was a self-acquired property or a joint Hindu family property. The appellant argued that the property was a joint Hindu family property since it was bought by his father, Badan Singh, but the respondent argues that the property, that was sold to him by Badan Singh was a self-acquired property and the property falls under the ambit of Punjab customary law and not in the Hindu Succession Act.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here