1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO.  786 OF 2008

HARNEK SINGH(DEAD) THR.LRS. & ORS.          Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

HUKAM CHAND (DEAD)                          Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1206 OF 2008

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. The  application(s)  for  intervention  is/are

rejected.

2. Delay  condoned.   The  application(s)  for

substitution is/are allowed.

3. The appellants are the legal representatives of

deceased Hari Singh, who was the defendant in Civil

Suit No. 32 of 1983 on the file of the Additional

Senior  Civil  Judge,  Ludhiana.   It  was  a  suit  for

specific performance.  The suit was decreed.  It was

reversed  at  the  first  appellate  stage.   The  High

Court, in second appeal, restored the Judgment of the

trial court and thus, the appellants are before this

Court.

2

4. The suit for specific performance was filed by

the plaintiffs in respect of a part of a large chunk

of land extending to 71 and odd Kanals.  According to

the  plaintiffs,  the  deceased  defendant  had  already

executed three Sale Deeds.  Only when he declined to

execute  the Sale  Deed in  respect of  the remaining

seven and odd Kanals, the suit happened to be filed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed

out that the coparceners had already filed a suit for

cancellation of the three Sale Deeds already executed

by Hari Singh and that suit, being CS No. 372 of 1983

is still pending before the Civil Judge, Ludhiana.

The  suit was  filed based  mainly on  the contention

that the deceased Hari Singh was not in a fit state

of mind so as to execute the Sale Deed since he was

addicted to liquor and drugs.  He was the Karta of a

Joint Hindu Family and that the sale was not for the

benefit of the family.

6. In the above factual matrix, we are of the view

that the pending suit filed by the coparceners needs

to be tried on its own merits since the outcome of

the  land  in  dispute  covered  by  the  suit  may  have

certainly some bearing on the civil suit for specific

performance  leading  to  the  Judgment  in  the  Second

3

Appeal, which is impugned in the civil appeals.

7. In  the  above  circumstances,  these  appeals  are

disposed of as follows :-

(1) The Civil Judge, Ludhiana is directed to try and

dispute  of  CS  No.  372  of  1983  on  its  own  merits

expeditiously.   

(2) We make it clear that the trial court shall not

frame an issue on the mental state of mind of late

Hari Singh since on that issue, there is a concurrent

finding that Hari Singh was in a fit state of mind, as

per the stand taken by himself.   

(3) Therefore, the suit shall be tried only on the

following issues :-

i) Whether the suit scheduled property in the

hands of Hari Singh was an ancestral property.

ii) Whether  the  legal  representatives  are  the

coparceners.

iii) Whether  the  alleged  sale  of  ancestral

property  by  Hari  Singh,  which  is  the  subject

matter of the suit, was for the welfare of the

Joint Hindu Family.

iv) Whether Hari Singh, as a Karta of the family,

was competent to dispose of the suit scheduled

property.

4

8. We  record  the  submission  made  by  the  learned

counsel on both sides that the outcome of RSA No. 447

of 1987 will depend on the decree in CS No. 372 of

1983, referred to above.  They are, accordingly, free

to approach the High Court, if required, after the

disposal of the suit.   

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ A.M. KHANWILKAR ]  

New Delhi; October 25, 2018.