Case Summary
| Citation | Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal KaurDecided on 1 July, 2019 (SC)CIVIL APPEAL NO.5124 OF 2019 |
| Keywords | minor coparcener, sale deed, legal necessity or benefit of estate |
| Facts | Dharam Singh had only one son, Arshnoor Singh – the Appellant herein. The Appellant was born on 22.08.1985 to Dharam Singh through his 1st wife. Dharam Singh purportedly sold the entire suit property to Respondent No. 1 viz. Harpal Kaur via two registered Sale Deeds in 1999.Subsequently in 1999, Dharam Singh got married to Respondent No. 1. The Collector, Ferozepur vide Order in 2000, held that the two Sale Deeds executed by Dharam Singh in favour of Respondent No. 1 were without any monetary transaction. The Appellant became a major in 2003. On 2004, the Appellant filed a Suit for Declaration against his father Dharam Singh and Harpal Kaur for a declaration that the suit property was coparcenary property, and hence the two Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 executed by his father Dharam Singh in favour of Harpal Kaur herein were illegal, null and void. The Appellant further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining Harpal Kaur from further alienating, transferring, or creating a charge on the suit property. During the pendency of the Suit, Harpal Kaur entered into a transaction whereby she purportedly sold the suit property jointly to Kulwant Singh and Jung Bahadur. |
| Issues | Whether the suit property was coparcenary property or self-acquired property of Dharam Singh? The validity of the Sale Deeds executed on 01.09.1999 by Dharam Singh in favour of Harpal Kaur, and the subsequent Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Harpal Kaur in favour of Kulwant Singh and Jung Bahadur? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | ➢ Under Mitakshara law, whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees below him, would get an equal right as coparceners in that property. ➢ After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, this position has undergone a change. Post – 1956, if a person inherits a self-acquired property from his paternal ancestors, the said property becomes his self-acquired property, and does not remain coparcenary property. ➢ If succession opened under the old Hindu law, i.e. prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the parties would be governed by Mitakshara law. The property inherited by a male Hindu from his paternal male ancestor shall be coparcenary property in his hands visàvis his male descendants upto three degrees below him. The nature of property will remain as coparcenary property even after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. ➢ In the present case, the succession opened in 1951 on the death of Lal Singh. The nature of the property inherited by his son Inder Singh was coparcenary in nature. Even though Inder Singh had effected a partition of the coparcenary property amongst his sons in 1964, the nature of the property inherited by Inder Singh’s sons would remain as coparcenary property qua their male descendants upto three degrees below them. ➢ The suit property which came to the share of late Dharam Singh through partition, remained coparcenary property qua his son – the Appellant herein, who became a coparcener in the suit property on his birth. ➢ In the present case, the onus was on the alienee i.e., Respondent No. 1, to prove that there was a legal necessity, or benefit to the estate, or that she had made bona fide enquiries on the existence of the same. Respondent No. 1 has completely failed to discharge the burden of proving that Dharam Singh had executed the two Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 in her favour out of legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. |
| Judgement | As a consequence, the Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 are hereby cancelled as being illegal, null and void. Dharam Singh could not have sold the coparcenary suit property, in which the Appellant was a coparcener, by the aforesaid alleged Sale Deeds. Since Respondent No. 1 has not obtained a valid and legal title to the suit property through the Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999, she could not have passed on a better title to Kulwant Singh and Jung Bahadur either. The subsequent Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Kulwant Singh and Jung Bahadur is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
2.1. Lal Singh was the owner of large tracts of agricultural land in Village Khangarh, District
Ferozepur, Punjab. The Appellant herein is the greatgrandson of Lal Singh. The genealogy table
of Lal Singh’s family is set out hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:
Lal Singh Inder Singh Gurcharan Singh Dharam Singh Swaran Singh Dharam Kaur (son) (son)
(son) (daughter) Arshnoor Singh (Appellant)
2.2. Lal Singh passed away in 1951, and his entire property was inherited by his only son Inder
Singh. In 1964, Inder Singh during his lifetime, effected a partition of the entire property vide
decree dated 04.11.1964 passed in Civil Suit No. 182 of 4.11.1962 between his three sons viz.
Gurcharan Singh, Dharam Singh, and Swaran Singh in equal shares. Thereafter, the three sons
transferred onefourth share in the entire property back to their father Inder Singh for his
sustenance. As a consequence, Inder Singh and his three sons held onefourth share each in the
property. Inder Singh expired on 15.04.1970, and his one fourth share was inherited by his heirs
i.e. his widow, three sons, and his daughter.
2.3. The present matter pertains to the property which came to the share of one of his sons viz.
Dharam Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”), which was agricultural land
comprised of about 119 kanals 2 marlas, situated in Village Khangarh, District Feozepur, Punjab.
2.4. Dharam Singh had only one son viz. Arshnoor Singh – the Appellant herein. The Appellant
was born on 22.08.1985 to Dharam Singh through his 1st wife.
2.5. Dharam Singh purportedly sold the entire suit property to Respondent No. 1 viz. Harpal Kaur
vide two registered Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 for an ostensible sale consideration of Rs.
4,87,500/. The first Sale Deed bearing Wasika No. 1075 pertains to land admeasuring 59 kanals
11 marlas situated in Khasra No. 35; the second Sale Deed bearing Wasika No. 1079 pertains to
land admeasuring 59 kanals 11 marlas in Khasra No. 36.
2.6. On 21.09.1999, the two Sale Deeds were sent by the SubRegistrar to the Collector, Ferozepur
for action u/S. 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1999 as the Sale Deeds were undervalued. Dharam
Singh and Respondent No. 1 – Harpal Kaur appeared before the Collector. Dharam Singh
admitted that no consideration was exchanged in lieu of the two Sale Deeds, and the amount of
Rs. 4,87,500/ was mentioned only for the purpose of registration. Respondent No. 1 – Harpal
Kaur, the purported vendee, admitted that no money was paid by her to Dharam Singh in
exchange for the suit property.
73
2.7. Subsequently, on 29.09.1999, Dharam Singh got married to Respondent No. 1. The
Collector, Ferozepur vide Order dated 24.01.2000, held that the two Sale Deeds executed by
Dharam Singh in favour of Respondent No. 1 were without any monetary transaction.
2.8. The Appellant became a major on 22.08.2003. On 23.11.2004, the Appellant filed a Suit for
Declaration against his father Dharam Singh as Defendant No. 1, and Harpal Kaur as Defendant
No. 2 (Respondent No. 1 herein) for a declaration that the suit property was coparcenary property,
and hence the two Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 executed by his father Dharam Singh in favour of
Respondent No. 1 herein were illegal, null and void. The Appellant further prayed for a
permanent injunction restraining Respondent No. 1 from further alienating, transferring, or
creating a charge on the suit property.
2.9. During the pendency of the Suit, Respondent No. 1 entered into a transaction whereby she
purportedly sold the suit property jointly to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 viz. Kulwant Singh and Jung
Bahadur vide a Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007. Respondent No. 1 filed an Application to Implead
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as codefendants in the Suit. However, the said Application was disposed
of vide Order dated 25.09.2010, with liberty granted to Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 2 to
defend their rights.
2.10. The Additional Civil Judge, Ferozepur vide Order dated 29.04.2011, decreed the Suit in
favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff. Dharam Singh in his deposition had stated that he executed the
Sale Deeds without any monetary consideration since Respondent No. 1 insisted on transfer of
the suit property in her name as a pre condition for marriage.The Trial Court held that the suit
property was ancestral coparcenary property of Dharam Singh and the Appellant. Respondent No.
1 failed to prove that Dharam Singh had sold the suit property to Respondent No. 1 for either
legal necessity of the family, or for the benefit of the estate. Consequently, the two Sale Deeds
dated 01.09.1999 purportedly executed by Dharam Singh in favour of Respondent No.
1/Defendant No. 2 were illegal, null and void. The Appellant was held entitled to joint
possession of the suit property with his father.
2.11. Respondent No. 1 along with the subsequent purchasers – Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed a
common Civil Appeal RBT No. 130 of 3.6.2011/7.9.2013 before the Additional District Judge,
Ferozepur. The ADJ vide Judgment & Order dated 13.01.2014 dismissed the Appeal. The
Appellate Court held that the two Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 were executed without any
consideration as per the admission of Dharam Singh, and Respondent No. 1 in their statements
recorded by the Collector, Ferozepur. In the absence of any legal necessity, or benefit to the estate
of the joint Hindu family, the Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 were illegal, null and void.
2.12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 filed RSA No. 1354 of 2014
before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
2.13. During the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal before the High Court, Dharam Singh
expired on 05.01.2017.
74
2.14. The High Court vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 13.11.2018, allowed the RSA
filed by the Respondents, and set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below. The High
Court held that (i) the Appellant had no locus to institute the Suit, since the coparcenary property
ceased to exist after Inder Singh partitioned the property between his 3 sons in 1964; (ii) the
Appellant had no right to challenge the Sale Deeds executed on 01.09.1999 on the ground that the
sale consideration had not been paid, since only the executant of the Sale Deeds viz. Dharam
Singh (Defendant No. 1) could have made such a challenge; and (iii) Jamabandis for the years
1957 – 58 till 1970 – 71 were not produced by the Appellant.
2.15. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the High Court,
the Appellant has filed the present Civil Appeal.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the pleadings and written
submissions filed by the parties.
4. Mr. Manoj Swarup, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the
suit property was coparcenary property in which the Appellant had become a coparcener by
birth.It was further submitted that since the suit property was coparcenary property, Dharam
Singh could not have alienated it without legal necessity of the family, or benefit to the estate.It
was further submitted that the Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 purportedly executed by Respondent
No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, during the pendency of the Suit, was hit by lis
pendens. Hence, it was illegal, null and void.
5. Mr. Ritin Rai, Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the Civil Suit was
filed by the Appellant in collusion with his father Dharam Singh (Defendant No. 1), as Dharam
Singh’s marriage with Respondent No. 1 had fallen apart, and had subsequently been dissolved
through a decree of divorce on 15.12.2010. It was contended that the Civil Suit was filed by the
Appellant at the behest of his father Dharam Singh.
It was further submitted that the suit property was not coparcenary property when the two Sale
Deeds were executed on 01.09.1999. Inder Singh’s property ceased to be coparcenary property
after it was divided vide the decree dated 04.11.1964. Reliance was placed on the decision of this
Court in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, (2016) 4 SCC 68 wherein it was held that:
“18. Some other judgments were cited before us for the proposition that joint family property
continues as such even with a sole surviving coparcener, and if a son is born to such coparcener
thereafter, the joint family property continues as such, there being no hiatus merely by virtue of
the fact there is a sole surviving coparcener. Dharma ShamraoAgalawe v. Pandurang
MiraguAgalawe (1988) 2 SCC 126, Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand, (2006) 8 SCC 581, and Rohit
Chauhan v. Surinder Singh (2013) 9 SCC 419, were cited for this purpose. None of these
judgments would take the appellant any further in view of the fact that in none of them is there
any consideration of the effect of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act. The law,
therefore, insofar as it applies to joint family property governed by the Mitakshara School, prior
to the amendment of 2005, could therefore be summarized as follows:
75
…
(vi) On a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint family property has been
distributed in accordance with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property
ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as
they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.” It was further submitted
that the Appellant had no locus to file the Civil Suit on the ground that no sale consideration was
paid by Respondent No. 1 to Dharam Singh. The Appellant was not a party to the Sale Deeds, and
only the executant of the Sale Deeds viz. Dharam Singh, could have filed such a suit.
6. The issues that arise for consideration before us are twofold:
(i) whether the suit property was coparcenary property or selfacquired property of Dharam Singh;
(ii) the validity of the Sale Deeds executed on 01.09.1999 by Dharam Singh in favour of
Respondent No. 1, and the subsequent Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Respondent No.
1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
7. With respect to the first issue, it is the admitted position that Inder Singh had inherited the
entire suit property from his father Lal Singh upon his death. As per the Mutation Entry dated
16.01.1956 produced by Respondent No. 1, Lal Singh’s death took place in 1951. Therefore, the
succession in this case opened in 1951 prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 when Inder Singh succeeded to his father Lal’s Singh’s property in accordance with the old
Hindu Mitakshara law.
7.1. Mulla in his commentary on Hindu Law (22 nd Edition) has stated the position with respect
to succession under Mitakshara law as follows:
Page 129 “A son, a grandson whose father is dead, and a greatgrandson whose father and
grandfather are both dead, succeed simultaneously as single heir to the separate or selfacquired
property of the deceased with rights of survivorship.” Page 327 “All property inherited by a male
Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father, is ancestral property. The
essential feature of ancestral property according to Mitakshara law is that the sons, grandsons and
greatgrandsons of the person who inherits it, acquire an interest, and the rights attached to such
property at the moment of their birth.
A person inheriting property from his three immediate paternal ancestors holds it, and must hold
it, in coparcenary with his sons, son’s sons, and son’s son’s sons, but as regards other relations, he
holds it, and is entitled to hold it as his absolute property.” (emphasis supplied)
7.2. In Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krisha Prasad &Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 646 this Court has recently
held that :
“12. It is settled that the property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father or
father’s father’s father is an ancestral property.
The essential feature of ancestral property, according to Mitakshara Law, is that the sons,
grandsons, and great grandsons of the person who inherits it, acquire an interest and the rights
76
attached to such property at the moment of their birth. The share which a coparcener obtains on
partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. After partition, the
property in the hands of the son will continue to be the ancestral property and the natural or
adopted son of that son will take interest in it and is entitled to it by survivorship.” (emphasis
supplied)
7.3. Under Mitakshara law, whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his
paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees
below him, would get an equal right as coparceners in that property.
7.4. In Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 this Court held that :
“11. This question has been considered by this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur
and Ors. v. Chander Sen and Ors. [1986] 161 ITR 370 (SC) where one of us (Sabyasachi
Mukharji, J) observed that under the Hindu Law, the moment a son is born, he gets a share in
father’s property and become part of the coparcenary. His right accrues to him not on the death of
the father or inheritance from the father but with the very fact of his birth. Normally, therefore
whenever the father gets a property from whatever source, from the grandfather or from any other
source, be it separated property or not, his son should have a share in that and it will become part
of the joint Hindu family of his son and grandson and other members who form joint Hindu
family with him. This Court observed that this position has been affected by Section 8 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, therefore, after the Act, when the son inherited the property in
the situation contemplated by Section 8, he does not take it as Karta of his own undivided family
but takes it in his individual capacity.” (emphasis supplied)
7.5. After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, this position has undergone a change.
Post – 1956, if a person inherits a selfacquired property from his paternal ancestors, the said
property becomes his self acquired property, and does not remain coparcenary property.
7.6. If succession opened under the old Hindu law, i.e. prior to the commencement of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, the parties would be governed by Mitakshara law. The property inherited
by a male Hindu from his paternal male ancestor shall be coparcenary property in his hands
visàvis his male descendants upto three degrees below him. The nature of property will remain as
coparcenary property even after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
7.7. In the present case, the succession opened in 1951 on the death of Lal Singh. The nature of
the property inherited by his son Inder Singh was coparcenary in nature. Even though Inder Singh
had effected a partition of the coparcenary property amongst his sons in 1964, the nature of the
property inherited by Inder Singh’s sons would remain as coparcenary property qua their male
descendants upto three degrees below them.
7.8. The judgment in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh (supra) relied upon by the Respondents is not
applicable to the facts of the present case. In Uttam, the appellant therein was claiming a share in
the coparcenary property of his grandfather, who had died in 1973 before the appellant was born.
The succession opened in 1973 after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The Court
77
was concerned with the share of the appellant’s grandfather in the ancestral property, and the
impact of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In light of these facts, this Court held that
after property is distributed in accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, such
property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have
succeeded to it. It was therefore held that the appellant was not a coparcener visàvis the share of
his grandfather.
7.9. In the present case, the entire property of Lal Singh was inherited by his son Inder Singh as
coparcenary property prior to 1956. This coparcenary property was partitioned between the three
sons of Inder Singh by the court vide a decree of partition dated 04.11.1964. The shares allotted
in partition to the coparceners, continued to remain coparcenary property in their hands qua their
male descendants. As a consequence, the property allotted to Dharam Singh in partition continued
to remain coparcenary property qua the Appellant.
7.10. With respect to the devolution of a share acquired on partition, Mulla on Hindu Law (22 nd
Edition) states the following:
Ҥ 339. Devolution of share acquired on partition. РThe effect of a partition is to dissolve the
coparcenary, with the result, that the separating members thenceforth hold their respective shares
as their separate property, and the share of each member will pass on his death to his heirs.
However, if a member while separating from his other coparceners continues joint with his own
male issue, the share allotted to him on partition, will in his hands, retain the character of a
coparcenary property as regards the male issue [§ 221, sub§ (4)].” (emphasis supplied)
7.11. This Court in Valliammai Achi v. NagappaChettiar and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1153 held that:
“10. … It is well settled that the share which a cosharer obtains on partition of ancestral property
is ancestral property as regards his male issues. They take an interest in it by birth whether they
are in existence at the time of partition or are born subsequently: [see Hindu Law by Mulla,
Thirteenth Edition p. 249, para 223 (2)(4)]. If that is so and the character of the ancestral property
does not change so far as sons are concerned even after partition, we fail to see how that character
can change merely because the father makes a will by which he gives the residue of the joint
family property (after making certain bequests) to the son.” (emphasis supplied)
7.12. The suit property which came to the share of late Dharam Singh through partition, remained
coparcenary property qua his son – the Appellant herein, who became a coparcener in the suit
property on his birth i.e. on 22.08.1985.Dharam Singh purportedly executed the two Sale Deeds
on 01.09.1999 in favour of Respondent No. 1 after the Appellant became a coparcener in the suit
property.
8. The second issue which has arisen for consideration is whether the two Sale Deeds dated
01.09.1999 executed by Dharam Singh in favour of Respondent No. 1, were valid or not.
8.1. It is settled law that the power of a Karta to sell coparcenary property is subject to certain
restrictions viz. the sale should be for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. The onus for
78
establishing the existence of legal necessity is on the alienee. In Rani &Anr. v. Santa Bala
Debnath &Ors., (1970) 3 SCC 722 this Court held that :
“10. Legal necessity to support the sale must however be established by the alienees. Sarala
owned the land in dispute as a limited owner. She was competent to dispose of the whole estate in
the property for legal necessity or benefit to the estate. In adjudging whether the sale conveys the
whole estate, the actual pressure on the estate, the danger to be averted, and the benefit to be
conferred upon the estate in the particular instance must be considered.
Legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion: it means pressure upon the estate which in law
may be regarded as serious and sufficient. The onus of providing legal necessity may be
discharged by the alienee by proof of actual necessity or by proof that he made proper and bona
fide enquires about the existence of the necessity and that he did all that was Vijay A. Mittal
&Ors. v. Kulwant Rai (Dead) through LRs &Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 520; Mulla on Hindu Law (22nd
Edition), Pg. 372 reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of the necessity.” (emphasis
supplied)
8.2. In the present case, the onus was on the alienee i.e. Respondent No. 1 to prove that there was
a legal necessity, or benefit to the estate, or that she had made bona fide enquiries on the
existence of the same.
8.3. Respondent No. 1 has completely failed to discharge the burden of proving that Dharam
Singh had executed the two Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 in her favour out of legal necessity or
for the benefit of the estate. In fact, it has come on record that the Sale Deeds were without any
consideration whatsoever.
Dharam Singh had deposed before the Trial Court that he sold the suit property to Respondent
No. 1 without any consideration. Respondent No. 1 had also admitted before the Collector,
Ferozepur that the Sale Deeds were without consideration. Hence, the ground of legal necessity or
benefit of the estate falls through.
8.4. As a consequence, the Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 are hereby cancelled as being illegal,
null and void. Dharam Singh could not have sold the coparcenary suit property, in which the
Appellant was a coparcener, by the aforesaid alleged Sale Deeds.
9. Since Respondent No. 1 has not obtained a valid and legal title to the suit property through the
Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999, she could not have passed on a better title to Respondent Nos. 2 &
3 either.The subsequent Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The underlying principle of the
doctrine of lis pendens is that if a property is transferred pendente lite, and the transferor is held
to have no right or title in that property, the transferee will not have any title to the property.7
The Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2
& 3 being null and void, is hereby cancelled.
79
10. The Plaintiff/Appellant being a male coparcener in the suit property, was vitally affected by
the purported sale of the suit property by his father Dharam Singh.
The Appellant therefore had the locus to file the Suit for a Declaration that the suit property being
coparcenary property, could not have been sold by his father Dharam Singh without legal
necessity, or for the benefit of the estate. As a consequence, the Appellant was entitled to move
the Court for a Declaration that the two Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 executed by his father
Dharam Singh in favour of Respondent No. 1 were illegal, null and void.
10.1. The very fact that the Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 were executed without any
consideration, would itself show that the suit property was sold without any legal necessity. Being
coparcenary property, it could not have T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal&Ors., (2010) 14
SCC 370 been sold without legal necessity, or for the benefit of the estate.
10.2. The nonproduction of the Jamabandiswould make no difference, as it did not affect the
title/ownership of the suit property.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion on law, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court vide the Impugned Order dated 13.11.2018, being contrary to law, is set aside.
The Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 bearing Wasika Nos. 1075 and 1079 executed by Dharam
Singh in favour of Respondent No. 1 are hereby cancelled and set aside. Consequently, the
subsequent Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent
Nos. 2 & 3 during the pendency of proceedings is illegal, and hereby cancelled and set aside.
The name of the Appellant is to be recorded in the Jamabandis as the owner of the suit property.
The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending Applications, if any, are
accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.
