# GIANI RAM & ORS v. RAMJI LAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 944
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-03-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal :No. 438· of 1966
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/giani-ram-ors-v-ramji-lal-ors-4703
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Punjab Customs-Female heirs not entitled to challenge sale b,v male
owner-Father selling property in 1916 without legal necessity-Son filing
A
B
suit in 1920 and obtaining declaration that. alienation not to enure beyond
father's life time-Hindu Succession Act 1956 giving equal rights to·
female heirs-Father dying in 1959-Right of female heirs to sue for
possession of alienated property on basis of declaratory decree whether
C
barred by Punjab Custom (Pol"er to Contest) Act of 1920.
Code of Civil Procedure 0. 41, r. 33-Power of Appellate Court to
grant relief to parties to suit who have not app't!aled or filed cross·objections
J, a Hindu Jat governed by the Punjab Customary Laws, sold without
D
legal necessity, in 1916, a fourth share of his ancestral land to one S.
Under the Punjab Customary Laws females could not challenge a sale
o'f ancestral property by a male owner. J's son G, in suit No. 75 of 1920
obtained a declaratory decree to the effect ihat the sale to S would not
enure beyond the life-time of J. When J died in 1959 the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force and his three sons, daughters and
widow inherited his estate in equal shares.
The three sons, the widow
.and the daughters then filed a suit for possession of the aforesaid alieilatE
ed land on the basis of the decree in suit No. 75 of 1920. Under s. 8
of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920 only those competent to contest an alienation c\>uld take advantage of a decree obtained
by a reversioner. The trial court passed a decree for a half share of the
suit property in favour of the sons only, holding that the female heirs of
J were not entitled to take advantag~ of the decree in suit No. 75 of 1920.
The District Court modified the decree by decreeing the suit in respect of
the whole property in favour of the sons. In second appeal the High
F
Court restored the decree of the trial court holding that the claim of the
female heirs of .J could not be upheld, firstly because of the Punjab customary law and s. 8 of Act 1 of 1920, and secondly because they had not
filed anv appeals a~ainst the orders of the lower courts.
In appeals by
special leave before this Court,
HELD : (i) The preliminary objections raised by the alienees that the
suit in its entirety should have been dismissed, because by the enactment
G
of the Hindu Succession Act J was to be deemed a full owner and notwithstanding the decree of 1920 his sons had after that Act no subsisting
reve'rsionary interest in the property, must stand rejected. There is nothing
in the Hindu Succession Act which retrospectively enlarges the power of
a holder of ancestral land
or nullifies
a decree passed before the Act.
[947 B-CJ
(ii) Under the customary law of the Punjab the wife and the
H
daughters of a holder of ancestral property qould not sue to obtain a
declaration that the alienation of ancestr11l
property will not bind the
·reversioners after t~ death of the aliener. But a declaratory decree
GIAN! RAM v. RAMJI LAL (Shah, J.)
945
A
obtained in a suit instituted by a reversioner competent to sue has the
effect of restoring the. property alienated to the
estate of the alienor.
f947 GJ
iB
c
D
E
F
G
H
The "effect of the declaratory decree in the suit filed by G in 1920
was merely to declare that by the sale, the interest conveyed to the alienee
was to enure durin~ the life time of the alienor.
The conclusion was
therefore inevitable that the property alienated reverted to the estate of
J at the point of his death and all persons who would, but for the alienation have taken the estate were entitled to inherit the same. If J had
died before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 was enacted, the three sons
would have taken the estate to the exclusion of the widow and the .two
daughters. After the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act the estate
devolved, by virtue of ss. 2 and 4(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956,
upon the three sons, the widow and the two daughters. [947 H-948 Bl
The High Court was theref

## Text

GIANI RAM & ORS.
v.
RAMJI LAL & ORS.
March 11, 1969
[J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Punjab Customs-Female heirs not entitled to challenge sale b,v male
owner-Father selling property in 1916 without legal necessity-Son filing
A
B
suit in 1920 and obtaining declaration that. alienation not to enure beyond
father's life time-Hindu Succession Act 1956 giving equal rights to·
female heirs-Father dying in 1959-Right of female heirs to sue for
possession of alienated property on basis of declaratory decree whether
C
barred by Punjab Custom (Pol"er to Contest) Act of 1920.
Code of Civil Procedure 0. 41, r. 33-Power of Appellate Court to
grant relief to parties to suit who have not app't!aled or filed cross·objections
J, a Hindu Jat governed by the Punjab Customary Laws, sold without
D
legal necessity, in 1916, a fourth share of his ancestral land to one S.
Under the Punjab Customary Laws females could not challenge a sale
o'f ancestral property by a male owner. J's son G, in suit No. 75 of 1920
obtained a declaratory decree to the effect ihat the sale to S would not
enure beyond the life-time of J. When J died in 1959 the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force and his three sons, daughters and
widow inherited his estate in equal shares.
The three sons, the widow
.and the daughters then filed a suit for possession of the aforesaid alieilatE
ed land on the basis of the decree in suit No. 75 of 1920. Under s. 8
of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920 only those competent to contest an alienation c\>uld take advantage of a decree obtained
by a reversioner. The trial court passed a decree for a half share of the
suit property in favour of the sons only, holding that the female heirs of
J were not entitled to take advantag~ of the decree in suit No. 75 of 1920.
The District Court modified the decree by decreeing the suit in respect of
the whole property in favour of the sons. In second appeal the High
F
Court restored the decree of the trial court holding that the claim of the
female heirs of .J could not be upheld, firstly because of the Punjab customary law and s. 8 of Act 1 of 1920, and secondly because they had not
filed anv appeals a~ainst the orders of the lower courts.
In appeals by
special leave before this Court,
HELD : (i) The preliminary objections raised by the alienees that the
suit in its entirety should have been dismissed, because by the enactment
G
of the Hindu Succession Act J was to be deemed a full owner and notwithstanding the decree of 1920 his sons had after that Act no subsisting
reve'rsionary interest in the property, must stand rejected. There is nothing
in the Hindu Succession Act which retrospectively enlarges the power of
a holder of ancestral land
or nullifies
a decree passed before the Act.
[947 B-CJ
(ii) Under the customary law of the Punjab the wife and the
H
daughters of a holder of ancestral property qould not sue to obtain a
declaration that the alienation of ancestr11l
property will not bind the
·reversioners after t~ death of the aliener. But a declaratory decree
GIAN! RAM v. RAMJI LAL (Shah, J.)
945
A
obtained in a suit instituted by a reversioner competent to sue has the
effect of restoring the. property alienated to the
estate of the alienor.
f947 GJ
iB
c
D
E
F
G
H
The "effect of the declaratory decree in the suit filed by G in 1920
was merely to declare that by the sale, the interest conveyed to the alienee
was to enure durin~ the life time of the alienor.
The conclusion was
therefore inevitable that the property alienated reverted to the estate of
J at the point of his death and all persons who would, but for the alienation have taken the estate were entitled to inherit the same. If J had
died before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 was enacted, the three sons
would have taken the estate to the exclusion of the widow and the .two
daughters. After the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act the estate
devolved, by virtue of ss. 2 and 4(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956,
upon the three sons, the widow and the two daughters. [947 H-948 Bl
The High Court was therefore in error in holding that because in the
year 1920 the wife and daughters of J were incompetent to challenge the
alienation of ancestral property by J, they could not, after the enactment
of the Hindu. Succession Act inherit his estate when succession opened
after. that Act came into force. [948 B-C]
(iii) The High Court was equally in error in holding that because the
widow and daughters had not filed an appeal or cross-objections against
the decree of the lower courts, they were not entitled to any relief. The
sons, the daughters and the widow of J had filed the suit for a decree
for possession of the entire property and their claim was that the alienee
had no subsisting interest.
The District Court accepted that claim and
granted a decree in favour of the three sons for the entire property which
was alienated. If the alienees were unable to convince the court that they
had any subsisting interest in the property in dispute after the death of
J, the court was c)>mpetent under 0. 41 r. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adjust the rights between the sons, the daughters, and the widow
of J in that property. [948 E-G; 949 DJ
In 0. 41 r. 33 the expression 'which ought to have been passed' means
'what ought in law to have been passed'. If the Appellate Court is of the
view that any decree which ought in law to have been passed was in fact
not passed by the subordinate court. it may μass o'r make such further
or other decree or order as the justice of the case may require .. [949 BJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal :No. 438· of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
November 18, 1963 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Regular
Second Appeal No. 254 of 1962.
Mohan Behari Lal, for the appellants.
l. M. Lall and M. L. Agarwal, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sbilh, J.
In 1916 Jawala-a Hindu fat-governed by the
customary faw of the Punjab sold to one Shadi, without legal
necessity, a fourth share in 891 bighas 3 biswas, which was ancestral in his hands. Giani Ram son of Jwala instituted Suit No. 75
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R.
of 1920 in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, for
a declaration that the sale of ancestral lands of Jwala in favour
of Shadi was null and void and was ineffective against his reversionary rights. The suit was decreed ·by the Senior Subordinate
Judge, Hissar. The effect of the declaratory decree was that the
alienations could not enure beyond the life time of Jwala.
Jwala died on October 16, 1959, leaving his surviving three
sons-Giani Ram, Manphool and Chandgi-his wife Rajni, and
two daughters Phulwati and Chhanno. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which came into force on June 17, 1956, the
estate of Jwala devolved up<m his widow, his sons and his
daughters in equal shares. In an action filed by the three sons
of Jwala, his daughters and widow against the legal representatives
of Shadi for a decree for possession of the lands alienated by
Jwala the Senior .Subordinate Judge, Hissar decreed the suit for
a half share in property claimed by the plaintiffs. The learned
Judge was of the view that ocly the sons of Jwala could claim
the benefit of the decree in Suit No. 75 of 1920 and since their
shafe in the estate of Jwala was in the aggregate only a half, the
remaining half having devolved upon the widow and the two
daughters, a decree for a half share in tile lands alienated could
issue against the alienees.
In appeal by the plaintiffs to the District Court, Hissar, the
decree was modified. The learned 'District Judge decreed the claim
in its entirety, but only in favour of the three sons. In· his view
the sons were entitled to the ancestra·l property alienated by Jwala
and the widow and the two daughters had no interest thereinthe provisions of the Hillldu Succession Act notwithstanding.
Against that decree a second appeal was preferred by the heirs of
Shadi. The High Coun of Punjab set aside the decree passed by
the District Court and restored the decree of the Trial Court. In
the view of the High Court, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
the two daughters and widow of Jwala could inherit a share in the
estate of Jwala, but since by s. 8 of the Punjab Custom (Power
to Contest) Act I of 1920 only those persons could take the
beinefit of the declaratory decree obtained by any one of the
reversioners, who could contest the alienation by the vendor, and
it was a "settled rule of custom that a female heir cannot contest
the sale" by a male owner, a half share in the estate of Jwa!a
which devolved upon the sons could .be claimed by them, and the
widow and the daughters could not obtain bemefit of the decree.
The High Court also held that the suit filed by the widow and the
two daughters had been dismissed by the Trial Court and the
District Court and as they had l!IOt filed an appeal in the High
Court or even cross objections, the order of dismissal qua them
had become final, and no decree could be passed in their
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
GIAN! RAM V. RAMJI LAL (Shah, J.)
947
favour for possessiQn of any par~ of. the estate. With special leave
the appellants have appealed to this Court.
A preliminary objection raised by counsel for the respondents
that the suit in its entirety should have been dismissed, because
by the enactment of the Hindu Succes~ion Act Jwala was to J?e
deemed a full owner and notwithstandjing the decree passed
Ill
Suit No. 75 of 1920 his sOillS had after that Act no subsisting
reversionary interest in the property, must stand rejected.
The
High Court has granted a decree in favour of the three sons for
a half share in the property, and the decree is not challenged
in an appeal by the respondents. The respondents cannot now be
permitted to challenge that part of the decree. In any event there
is nothing in the Hindu Succession Act which retrospectively
enlarges the power of a holder of ancestral land or nullifies a
decree passed before the Act.
The Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920 wa,
enacted to restrict the rights excercisable by members of the
family to contest alienations made by a holder of ancestral property.
By virtue of s. 6 of the Act no person is entitled to contest
an alienation of ancestral immovable property 1lillless he is descended in the male line from the great-great-grand-father of the alienor. Under the customary law in force in the Punjab a declaratory
decree obtained by the reversionary h·eir in an action to set aside
the alieiiiation of ancestral property enured in favour of all persons
who ultimately took the estate on the death of the alienor for the
object of a declaratory suit.filed by a reversionary heir impeaching
an alienation of ancestral estate was to remove a c0mmon apprehended injury, in the interest of the reversioners. The decree did
not make the alienation a nullity-it removed the obstacle to the
right of the reversioner entitled to succeed when the succession
opened. By the decree passed in suit No. 75 of 1920 filed by
Giani Ram it was declared that the alienations by Jwala were not
binding after his life time, and the property will revert to his estate.
It is true that under the customary faw the wife arid the daughters
of !I holder of ancestral property could not sue to obtain a declaration that the alienation of ancestral property will not bind the
reversioners after the death of the alienor. But a declaratory
decree obtained in a suit instituted by a reversioner competent to
sue has ~e effect of restoring the property alienated to the estate
of the ahenor.
The effect of the declaratory decree in suit No. 7 5 of 1920
was mer~ly to declare that by the sale interest conveyed in .favour
u
of the al1enee was to enure during the Jife time of the alienor.
The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the property alienated
reverted to the estate of Jwala at the point of his death and all
persons who would, but for the alienatiOill, have taken the estate
Lli Sup. C.1./69-11
•
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
will
be
entitled
to
inherit
the
same.
If Jwala
had
died before the Hindu· Succession Act, 1956 was e;nacted
the three sons would have taken the
estate · to
the
exclusion of the widow and the two daughters. After the
enactment of the Hindu Succession Act the estate devolved, by
virtue of ss. 2 and 4(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, upon
the three sons, the widow and the two daughters. We are unable
to agree with the High Court that because in the year 1920 the
wife and the daughters of Jwala were i,Deompetent to challenge the
alienation of ancestral property by Jwala, they could not, after the
enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, inherit his estate when
succession opened after that Act came into force.
The second ground on which the lear,ned Judge has founded
his judgment also does not appeal to us. The three sons, the two
daughters and the widow of Jwala had filed the suit claiming
possession of the entire property from the alienee. That suit was
decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the sons only to the extent
df a half share in the property alienated. The Court held that
the widow and the daughters were not entitled to a share because
"only those persons can bring a suit for possession on the death
of J wala who had the right to challenge the alienation made by
Jwala". In appeal the District Court granted a decree for possession of the entire property on the view that the alieuJee had no
subsisting interest after the death of Jwala. But the District Court
granted a decree for possession of the entire property alienated
only in favour of the three sons, because in the view of the Court
the daughters and the widow of Jwala were not entitled to any
share ~n the property. According to the High Court if the widow
and the daughters were entitJ!ed to the share in the property. they
had disentitled themselves to that right, because they had not preferred an appeal or filed cross objections to the decree appealed
from. The sons, daughters and widow of Jwala filed a suit for a
decree for possession of the entire property and their primary claim
was that the alienee had no subsisting interest. The District Court
accepted that claim al!l<I granted a decree in favour of the three
sons for the entire property which was alienated. If the alienes
are unable to convince the Court that they had any subsisting
interest in the property in dispute after the death of Jwala the
Court will be competent to adjust the rights between the sons, the
daughters and the widow of Jwala in that property.
Order 41, r. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure was enacted
to meet a situation of the nature arising in this case.
In so far
as it is material, the rule provides :
"The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any
decree and make any order which ought to have been
passed or made and to pass or make such further or
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
GIAN! RAM v. RAMJI LAL (Shah, I.)
949
A
other decree or order as the case may require, and this
power may be exercised by the Court notwithstandiing
that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may
be exercised in favour of all or any ol the respondents
or parties, although sach respondents or parties may not
have filed any appeal or objection".
B
The expression "which ought to have been passed" means "which
ought in law to have beqii passed''. If the Appellate Court is of
the view that any decree which ought in law to have been passed,
but was in fact not passed by the subordinate court, it may pass
or make such further or other decree or order as the justice ol the
c
case may require
If the claim of the respondents to retain any part of the property after the death of Jwala is negatived, it would, be perpetrating gave injustice to deny to the wodow and the two daughters
their share ijtl the property to which they are in law entitled. In
our view, the case was one in which the power under 0. 41, r. 33,
Code ol Civil Procedure ought to have been exercised and the
D
claim not only of the three sons but also of the widow and the tw0>
daughters ought to have been decreed.
The appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the High
Court is modified. There will be a decree for possession of the
lands in suit in favour of the three sons, the widow ~
the two'
daughters of Jwala. The interest of the three sons is one-half in
E
the tands in suit and the interest of the widow and the twO
daughters is the other half in the lands, The plaintiffs will be
entitled to mesne tm>fits from the date of the suit under 0. 20,
r. 12, Code of Civtl Procedure. The appeal will be allowed with
costs throughout.
I' G.C.
Appeal allowed.