http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: TEG SINGH AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/03/1977

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. GOSWAMI, P.K. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1699            1977 SCR  (3) 365  1977 SCC  (2) 732

ACT:         (i)  Punjab  Customs (Power to contest) Act, 1920  S.  7  as         amended  by s. 3  of the Punjab Customs (Power  to  contest)         Amendment   Act  (Act  12)  1973--Construction  and   effect         of--(ii)  Punjab  Limitation (Custom) Act, 1 of 1920,  S.  8         scope of.

HEADNOTE:             S. 7 of the Punjab Customs (Power to Contest) Act,  1920         provided  that  no person shall contest  any  alienation  of         non-ancestral  immovable  property on the ground  that  such         alienation is contrary to custom.  S. 3 of the Amendment Act         12  of 1973 amended s. 7 with the .result that no  challenge         could  be made to the alienation of any immovable  property,         whether ancestral or non-ancestral, on the ground that it is         contrary to custom.             A  gift-deed  was  executed by one Mula,  in  favour  of         appellant No. 13 Bhagwati Deyi, on December 3, 1964.  Appel-         lants 1 to 12 claiming to be potential reversioners obtained         a decree on May 31,  1966 in a suit flied against the  donor         and  the donee for a declaration that under the Punjab  Cus-         toms (Power to Contest) Act Z of 1920 the gift-deed was  not         binding  on them and that decree was confirmed in appeal  on         October  16, 1967.  On July 10, 1966, Mula adopted  the  re-         spondent.   On March 11, 1970 appellant No. 13  executed  in         favour  of  appellants 1 to 12,, a lease in respect  of  the         property  which  was the subject matter of the  gift.   Mula         died  on August 23, 1971.  On December 13, 1971,  respondent         filed a suit for possession of certain properties  including         the property which Mula had gifted to appellant No. 13.  The         suit  was decreed on January 20,  1971 and that  decree  was         confirmed  in  appeal  by the District Court  and  the  High         Court.             In  appeal by special leave., the  appellants  contended         (i)  In decreeing the suit the Courts below had  over-looked         the  relevant  provisions of the Punjab  Customs  (Power  to         Contest) Amendment Act,  1973 by virtue of which the legali-         ty of the gift made by Mula to appellant No. 13 could not be         contested and (ii) since the respondent was not entitled  to         impeach  the  gift in favour of Bhagwati Devi,  having  been         adopted  after the date of the gift, the decree obtained  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

       appellants 1 to 12 cannot enure for his benefit, under s.  8         of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, of 1920.         Dismissing the appeal, the Court--             HELD: (1 ) That a declaratory decree obtained under  the         Punjab  Customs (Power to Contest) Act by a  reversioner  to         the effect that an alienation would not bind them after the.         alienor’s  death, had the effect of restoring  the  property         alienated  to the estate of the alienor and  therefore,  all         persons  who  are  heirs to the deceased  were  entitled  to         obtain possession of the alienated property. [367 E-F]             (ii)  The decree obtained by appellants 1 to 12  on  May         31,  1966 would enure for the benefit of all persons who are         entitled  to a share in the property of the. deceased as  it         existed  at the moment of his death.  Since Mula’s  property         stood freed from the encumbrance of the, gift at the  moment         of  his death, respondent as the adopted son  would  be  en-         tiled  to the  possession of the gifted property.   [367  H,         368-A]             Giani  Ram v. Ramji Lal (1969) 3 SCR 944, relied on  to;         Chand Singh v. bid Kaur (1974) 1 PLR 226 approved.             (iii) It is true that, if it became necessary after  the         amending Act of 1973 to contest the gift executed by Mula in         favour  of  Bhagwati  Devi, s. 7 of the Act  of  1920  would         operate  as  a bar to such a contest.  But  in  the  instant         case,  the basis on which the respondent has asked  for  the         relief  is  that upon the death of Mula in  1971,  the  gift         ceased  to  be operative by reason of the decree  passed  in         suit  No. 143/1965.  He has not and indeed he need not  have         contested  the validity of the gift-deed since the  question         was decided finally in the aforesaid suit. [367 B-D]         366

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 686 of 1976.             (Appeal  by Special leave from the Judgment  and   Order         dated  13-2-1976  of,the Punjab and Haryana  High  Court  in         R.S.A. No. 249 of 1976).         P.P. Juneja, for the appellants.         S.K. Mehta, K.R. Nagaraja and P.N. Puri, for respondent  No.         1         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             CHANDRACHUD,  J. (1) One Mula  executed   a   registered         gift  deed in favour of appellant No. 13, Bhagwati Devi,  on         December  3,  1964.  On April 29, 1965, appellants  1  to’12         claiming to be potential reversioners filed Suit No. 143  of         1965 against the donor and the donee for a declaration  that         under  the Punjab Custom (Power  to Contest) Act, 1920,  the         gift-deed was not binding on them.  The suit was decreed  by         the  trial  court on May 31, 1966 and that decree  was  con-         firmed in appeal on October 16, 1967.             (2)  In between, on July 10, 1966 Mula adopted  the  re-         spondent.  On March 11, 1970, appellant No. 13  executed  in         favour  of  appellants  1 to 12 a lease in  respect  of  the         property  which was the subject matter of the.  gift.   Mula         died on August 28, 1971.             (3) On December 13, 1971 respondent  filed  the  present         suit  against  the  appellants  for  possession  of  certain         properties  including the property which Mula had gifted  to         appellant  No. 13.  The suit was decreed by the trial  court         on  January 29, 1971 and the decree was confirmed in  appeal         by the District Court and the High Court.             (4)  On  June 3, 1976 appellants filed a  special  leave         petition in this Court challenging the High Court  judgment.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       They  raised,  inter alia, a new contention (ground  No.  B)         that in decreeing the suit, the courts below had  overlooked         the  relevant  provisions of the Punjab  Customs  (Power  to         Contest).   Amendment  Act of 1973, by virtue of  which  the         legality of the gift made by Mula in favour of Bhagwati Devi         could not be contested.  On June 11, 1976 this Court granted         special  leave  to the appellants limited to  the  aforesaid         Ground (B) of the special leave petition.             (5)  We  have  heard an interesting  argument  from  Mr.         Juneja, who appears on behalf of the appellants, as  regards         the  true  construction  and effect of  the  Punjab  Customs         (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, as amended in 1973, but we are         of  the  opinion that the argument lacks basis  and  cannot,         therefore,  be   accepted.  The  contention,  sought  to  be         raised for the first time by the learned counsel, is founded         on  the  assumption that by reason of the Amendment  Act  of         1973, the gift-deed executed by Mula cannot be challenged by         the  respondent.   The assumption on which the  argument  is         founded is fallacious, because the respondent does not  seek         by  his plaint, as indeed he need not have sought, to  chal-         lenge  the gift-deed executed by Mula in favour of  Bhagwati         Devi.  That gift was challenged by appellants 1         367         to 12 in Suit No. 143 of 1965, and they succeeded in obtain-         ing a declaration in that suit that the gift was not binding         on  the  reversioners. That decree became  final,  with  the         result  that  as  on August 28, 1971,  when  Mula-died,  the         property which he had sought to gift away to Bhagwati  Devi,         was free from the encumbrance of the purported gift. By  the         present  suit, the respondent merely asks for possession  of         the property in respect of which Mula had executed the  deed         of gift. The basis on which he has asked for that relief  is         that  upon the death of Mula in 1971, the gift ceased to  be         operative by reason of the decree passed in Suit No. 143  of         1965.  It seems to us plain that he has not and he need  not         have  contested  the validity of the  gift-deed  since  that         question was decided finally in the aforesaid suit.             (6)  Section 7 of the Punjab Custom  .(Power   to   Con-         test)   Act,  1920 provided initially that no  person  shall         contest  any alienation of non-ancestral immovable  property         on  the ground that such alienation is contrary  to  custom.         This  section  was  amended by s. 3 of   the  Punjab  Custom         (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 12 of 1973, as a result of         which  no challenge could be made to the alienation  of  any         immovable  property, whether ancestral or non-ancestral,  on         the ground that it is contrary to custom.  It is, therefore,         true  that if it became necessary after the Amending Act  of         1973  to  contest  the gift executed by Mula  in  favour  of         Bhagwati  Devi, s. 7 of the Act of 1920 would operate  as  a         bar to such a contest.  However, as we have stated  earlier,         it  was  not necessary for the respondent, in  view  of  the         decree passed in suit No. 143 of 1965, to contest the valid-         ity of the gift.             (7) The decision of this Court  in  Giani Ram  v.  Ramji         Lal(1)  may,  with advantage be referred to on  this  point.         Under  the customary law of the Punjab, the wife and  daugh-         ters  of  a holder of ancestral property could  not  sue  to         obtain  a  declaration  that  the  allegation  of  ancestral         property  will not bind the reversioners after the death  of         the  alienor. But the reversioner who was entitled to  chal-         lenge that alienation could obtain a declaratory decree that         the  alienation  will not bind the  reversioners  after  the         alienor’s  death.   It was held by this Court  that  such  a         declaratory decree had the effect of restoring the  property         alienated  to  the estate of the alienor and  therefore  all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

       persons,  including  the wife and the daughters of  the  de-         ceased,  were entitled to the benefit of  that  restoration.         Since  the  property alienated had reverted to the estate of         the alienor at the point of his death, the widow and  daugh-         ters,  who also became heirs along with the sons  under  the         Hindu  Succession  Act, 1956 were held  entitled  to  obtain         possession of the ancestral property.  Mr. Juneja  attempted         to  get  over the effect of this decision  by  invoking  the         provisions of s. 8 of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act,  1         of 1920, which provides that when a person obtains a  decree         declaring that an alienation of ancestral immovable property         is  not  binding on him, according to.  custom,  the  decree         shall  enure  for  the benefit of all  persons  entitled  to         impeach  the  alienation.   Counsel argues  that  since  the         respondent was not entitled to impeach the gift in favour of         Bhagwati  Devi,  having been adopted after the date  of  the         gift,  the  decree  obtained by appellants 1  to  12  cannot         ensure for his benefit.  The  short  answer         (1) [1969] (3) S.C.R. 944.         9---436 SCI/77         368         to  this contention is that the decree would ensure for  the         benefit  of  all persons who are enitled to a share  in  the         property of the deceased as it existed at the moment of  his         death.   Since Mula’s property stood freed from  the  encum-         brance of the gift at the moment of his death, respondent as         the  adopted son would be entitled to the possession of  the         gifted property.             (8)  Another facet of the same question can be seen   in         Chand  Singh v. Ind Kaur.(1)  A learned Single JUdge of  the         Punjab  and  Haryana High Court held therein that  though  a         suit  to contest, under the customary law, an alienation  of         immovable  property may not lie after the coming into  force         of  the Amending Act of 1973, a declaratory  decree  already         obtained by a reversioner would continue to be operative  as         the Amending Act does not render such a decree a nullity.             (9) There is thus no substance in the contention  raised         by the appellants and their appeal must fail.  Appellants  1         to 12 shall pay the respondent’s ’costs of the appeal.         S.R.                       Appeal dismissed.         (1) (1974) 1 P.L.R. 226.         369