Reversionary rights
Satya nand aggarwal
(Querist) 30 April 2014
This query is : Resolved
Gurnam Singh through his wife Bhagwant Kaur sold the property to Amar Singh on 26-11-1965. The real brother of Gurnam Singh namely Darbara Singh challenged the sale deed being ancestral/coparcenary property and sale deed was set aside and suit was decreed with effect that it will not effect reversionary rights of Darbara Singh after the death of Gurnam Singh. Gurnam Singh died on 22-1-1986. This Bhagwant Kaur filed a suit for possession which was decreed by Lower court but but it went up to the Supreme Court and hon’ble Supreme Court held that Bhagwant Kaur cannot take benefit of the decree as she herself sold the property being attorney if G Singh. However, sale deed was challenged by Darbara Singh and Darbara Singh was also one of the legal heir of Gurnam Singh. After the death of Bhagwant Kaur my query is,
(1). Whether Legal heirs of Darbara Singh can filed suit being one of the legal heir of Gurnam Singh and take benefit of the decree or not?,
(2). Darbara Singh died, Whether his son can remain in possession of the property as Bhagwant Kaur has also died but she took the possession.
ROHIT SHARMA
(Expert) 30 April 2014
1. Bhagwant kaur though was the wife of Gurnam singh yet she could not have been deemed as being a co-parcerner in the ancestral property being shared by the two brother i.e Gurnam sing and Darbara singh.
2. It is valid legal ruling that Gurnam singh could not have got such undivided ancestral property sold through Bhagwant Kaur and the ruling came in favor of Darbara Singh who had contested such unlawful sale deed executed by Bhagwant Kaur as a P.O.A holder of Gurnam singh.
3. When Gurnam singh died then Bhagwant Kaur claimed to be the legal heir of Gurnam Singh and had obtained a decree in her favour to reqatian the possession of Gurnam singh share in the undivided property.
4. S.C. had Bhagwant kaur divested of her possession on the grounds that she could not do so because she had unlawfully sold such property as by way of her being the P.O.A. holder of Gurnm singh. This i think appears to be ridiculous since Bhagwant kaur on demise of her husband Gurnam Singh did attain to become a co-parcener in such undivided ancestral property by her virtue of being the legal heir of Gurnam Singh.
5. Bhagwant kaur still held on to the possession till her death of the share of her deceased husband in the undivided ancestral property.
6. It appears that Bhagwant Kaur died without leaving any legal heir.
7. Darbara singh therefore became the owner of the entire ancestral property after the death of Bhagwant Kaur.
8. After the death of Darbara Singh his legal heirs that would include his widow and his son have no become the true owners of the entire undivided ancestral property. They can retain the possession of such entire undivided ancestral property.
Satya nand aggarwal
(Querist) 01 May 2014
First of all thanks a lot for guidance , still i got a query, Mr sharma my query is whether lrs of darbara singh can take benefit of the decree or not passed in favour of darbara singh.
Second query as the alienee has moved an application under section 151 cpc for restoration of posession, lrs of darbara singh can get the stay of disposession from the court or not because of the judgement of s.c in favour of alienee , more over limitation to file suit by Lrs is three years from the death of Gurnam singh who died in 1986.
