http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PARSHOTAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HARBANS KAUR & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, made on July 26, 1995 in RSA No. 575/95.      The admitted  position is  that one  Mukhtiar Singh was the original  owner of the property. He died in 1966 leaving behind him was his son Harsukhjit Singh and his widow Pritam Kaur. Pritam  Kaur died  in 1971.  Harsukhjit Singh  has two sons,  viz,   Parshotam  Singh   and  Lakhmir  Singh  .  The respondents are the widow and sons of Lakhmir  Singh and the appellants are  the heirs of Parshotam Singh. The appellant- plaintiff  had   filed  a  suit  for  joint  possession  and declaration that  they are entitled to half the share in the property succeeded  by Harsukhjit  Singh.  The  trial  Court decreed the  suit. But, on appeal, it was reversed. The High Court dismissed  the appeal  on the  ground of  delay. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      On the  facts and circumstances, the High Court was not justified in  dismissing the  appeal on  the ground  of mere delay. The  High Court  would have gone into the question of the right  to the  succession of   the  property. It is seen that the appellate Court had recorded a finding of fact that Harsukhjit Singh  had succeeded  to not only the property of his grandfather  but also a part of the property heed by his mother, Pritam Kaur. Under these circumstances, the property which he inherited from his mother, Pritam Kaur would be his self-acquired property.  But the  property succeeded through his grand-father, Bakhtawar Singh would assume the character of joint  property.  The  appellate  Court  had  recorded  a finding that  since Harsukhjit Singh had blended his private property and  the joint  family  property,  it  assumed  the character of  self-acquired property.  Therefore, it  is not partible between  the appellants  and the  respondents.  The view taken  by the  appellate Court is clearly wrong in law. Though  Harsukhjit   Singh  had  blended  the  joint  family property with   his  private  property  inherited  from  his mother, the  joint family  property still  remains to be the joint family property until it is divided between the  heirs

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

of Harsukhjit  Singh. The  appellant being  the heirs of the father of  the respondent Parshotam Singh, they are entitled to the  half share  in the  property succeeded by Harsukhjit Singh from  his grant-father  and the rest of the half share would go  to the respondents.      The appeal  is, therefore,  allowed. The  orders of the High Court  and the  District Court  stand  set  aside.  The matter is  remitted to  the trial Court to pass final decree in accordance  with law.  The decree  of the    trial  Court stands restored. But, in the circumstances, without costs.