ARSHNOOR SINGH versus HARPAL KAUR & ORS.

ARSHNOOR SINGH versus HARPAL KAUR & ORS.

The succession to the suit property opened in 1951 prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, thus parties governed by Mitakshara law, and property remained coparcenary. Appellant became coparcener by birth, and sale deeds executed by his father without legal necessity or consideration are illegal, null and void. Subsequent sale during pendency of proceedings is void due to lis pendens.

Parties
Appellant: Arshnoor Singh; Respondent No.1: Harpal Kaur; Respondent No.2: Kulwant Singh; Respondent No.3: Jung Bahadur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Succession Under Mitakshara Law, Coparcenary Property, Doctrine of Lis Pendens, Power of Karta to Sell Coparcenary Property
Family Law Succession Under Mitakshara Law Coparcenary Property Doctrine of Lis Pendens Power of Karta to Sell Coparcenary Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arshnoor Singh

Appellant

Harpal Kaur

Respondent No.1

Kulwant Singh

Respondent No.2

Jung Bahadur

Respondent No.3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit property was ancestral/coparcenary property and could be sold by the Karta without legal necessity
  2. 2 Validity of sale deeds executed without consideration or legal necessity
  3. 3 Applicability of doctrine of lis pendens to subsequent sale

Ratio Decidendi

The succession to the suit property opened in 1951 prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, thus parties governed by Mitakshara law, and property remained coparcenary. Appellant became coparcener by birth, and sale deeds executed by his father without legal necessity or consideration are illegal, null and void. Subsequent sale during pendency of proceedings is void due to lis pendens.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 bearing Wasika Nos. 1075 and 1079 executed by Dharam Singh in favour of Respondent No. 1 cancelled and set aside as illegal, null and void.
  • Subsequent Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 cancelled and set aside.