published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40554
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5475 OF 2013
(@ SLP (C) No. 22388 of 2011)
ROHIT CHAUHAN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
SURINDER SINGH & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.
Sole plaintiff Rohit Chauhan is the appellant before us.
His
grandfather Budhu had three sons, namely, Gulab Singh, Zile Singh and one
Ram Kumar.
Gulab Singh, father of the plaintiff, has been arrayed as
defendant no. 2, whereas son of Zile Singh i.e. Surinder Singh figures as
defendant no. 1 in the suit. In partition between Budhu and his three sons,
defendant no. 2 got 1/4 share i.e., 72 Kanals of land.
In the said
partition Budhu also got 72 Kanals of land and he bequeathed 1/4 of his
share i.e., 18 Kanals to each of his three sons and kept with himself 18
Kanals.
After the death of Budhu, defendant no. 2 inherited 1/3 share
i.e., 6 Kanals and in this way plaintiff’s father Gulab Singh, defendant
no. 2,got 96 Kanals of land. Defendant No.2 during his lifetime also
acquired 8 Kanals of land from the income of the properties which he got in
partition amongst his father and brothers.
At the time of partition
defendant no. 2 was unmarried. But later on, Gulab Singh was married to
defendant no. 7, Rajesh Rani and from the wedlock the plaintiff as also
defendant no. 6 were born. Plaintiff was born on 25th of March, 1982.
Plaintiff alleged that his father defendant no. 2 executed two separate
sale deeds on 19th of May, 2000 selling 8 Kanals of land acquired from
joint family funds to defendant nos. 3 to 5.
It is further allegation of
the plaintiff that his father illegally gifted 96 Kanals of land in favour
of defendant no. 1 Surinder Singh, the son of his real brother Zile Singh
by way of release deed dated 28th of May, 2004. On the basis of the
release deed and the sale deeds, the defendants claiming interest therein
got their names mutated and attested in the revenue records.
It is the case
of the plaintiff that the property received by his father is ancestral
property and, therefore, alienation of the same by him is null and void.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff prayed for
declaration that the release deed, sale deeds and the mutation entries made
on that basis are illegal, null and void and not binding on him, Varsha
(defendant no. 6) and Rajesh Rani (defendant no. 7).
Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and, according to him, the
plaintiff, his mother Rajesh Rani and minor sister Varsha were living
separately from defendant No. 2 and there was no good relation between
them. They were not even on talking terms. According to defendant no. 1,
he and his family members were rendering service and giving honour to
defendant no. 2 and he was residing with them as their family member.
Defendant no. 1 further averred that out of love, affection and service
rendered by him, defendant no. 2 was pleased and, as such, he executed a
release deed in his favour and on that basis mutation entries were made.
It is the plea of defendant no.1 that the land in question became the self
acquired property of defendant no. 2 after partition and, therefore, he was
competent to transfer the property in the manner he desired. Defendant no.
1 further alleged that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 2 in favour
of defendant nos. 3 to 5 is legal and valid. Defendant no. 2 supported the
case of defendant no. 1 and adopted the written statement filed by him.
Defendant nos. 3 to 5 filed their separate written statements and supported
the plea of defendant no. 1 and averred that the sale deeds and the release
deed were validly executed. On the basis of the aforesaid pleading of the
parties various issues have been framed including the following issues:
“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
declaration to the effect that impugned release deed dt.28.5.2004 and mutation no.3365 entered and attested in
lieu of impugned release deed and further two sale deeds
dt.19.5.2000 bearing no.272/1 and 273/1 and mutation no.3110
and 3106 entered and attested on the basis of impugned two
sale deeds and further revenue entries are wrong, illegal
and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and
defendants no. 6 & 7?”
The trial court, on analysis of the materials placed on record and the
legal position, came to the conclusion that the property which defendant
no. 2 got by virtue of the partition decree amongst his father and brothers
was although separate property qua other relations but it attained the
characteristics of coparcenary property after the plaintiff Rohit Chauhan
was born. The finding recorded by the trial court in this regard reads as
follows:
“21. No doubt Gulab Singh got some of his share in the property
described in para no. 1(a) of the plaint through his father
Budhu vide mutation no. 3089 in which the father Budhu suffered
a decree in favour of defendant no. 1 along with Zile Singh and
Ram Kumar of 3/4th share but in the year 1969 when the said
decree was passed Gulab Singh was unmarried and he had got
alienated the land which had come to his share when Rohit
Chauhan, Plaintiff came into existence i.e. on 25.3.1982.
Meaning thereby that the property which Gulab Singh had got by
the decree was although his separate property qua other relation
but became JHF property immediately when Rohit Chauhan was born
thereby getting characteristic of coparcenary property.”
Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit.
Defendant no. 1, aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal and it was
his plea that the property received by defendant 2 on partition will become
his separate property and requires to be treated as his self acquired
property and, therefore, defendant no. 2 was free to deal with the property
in the manner he liked. In other words, according to defendant no. 1,
after partition the property falling in the share of defendant no. 2 lost
its character as a coparcenary property and assumed the status of self
acquired property. The aforesaid plea found favour with the lower
appellate court and it held that the property which defendant no. 2 got on
partition “lost the character of coparcenary property and became the self
acquired property of Gulab Singh”. The lower appellate court further held
that once the property is held to be self acquired property of Gulab Singh,
he had every right to deal with the same in any manner he liked. Relevant
portion of the judgment of the lower appellate court reads as
follows:
“13. In the light of above said precedents it can be readily
concluded that only when the property which is received by a
person from his ancestors by survivorship can be held to be
ancestral/coparcenary property and any other property which
although, might have been received from the ancestors by means
of will or consent decree or a father partitioned the property,
will loose its character as that of coparcenary property and
will become self acquired property in the hands of person
receiving it. Applying these precedents to the facts of the
present case, this Court will conclude that approximately 96
Kanals of land was received by Gulab Singh from his father Budhu
on the basis of consent decree or on the basis of will and not
by survivorship and this property lost the character of
coparcenary property and was self acquired property of Gulab
Singh. The version of plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in the present
case is that rest of the property was acquired by Gulab Singh
with the funds originated from joint Hindu family property and
the said property also assumed the character of joint Hindu
family property, also cannot be sustained because the major
chunk of land in the hands of Gulab Singh has been held to be
non-ancestral property and rather self acquired property of
Gulab Singh.
14. Once the property involved in the suit has been held to be
self acquired property of Gulab Singh then Gulab Singh was
having every right to deal with the same in any manner he liked
and no embargo can be put on the rights of Gulab Singh as well
as his rights to alienate the suit property are concerned and
thus neither release deed nor sale deeds executed by Gulab Singh
can be questioned by anyone much less by son of Gulab Singh…………”
Accordingly, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set
aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit.
Plaintiff, aggrieved by the same, preferred second appeal and the High
Court dismissed the second appeal in limine and, while doing so, observed
as follows:
“………Finding of the lower appellate court that the suit land is
not proved to be ancestral or coparcenary property is fully
justified by the documentary evidence and admitted facts…….”
This is how the plaintiff is before us.
Leave granted.
Mr. L.Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff-appellant submits that at the time when the plaintiff’s father
Gulab Singh got the property in partition, it was his separate property vis-
à-vis his relations but after the birth of the plaintiff on 25th of March,
1982, plaintiff acquired interest in the property as a coparcener. Mr.
Satinder S. Gulati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-
respondents, however, submits that once the property fell into the share of
the plaintiff’s father Gulab Singh, it lost the character of a coparcenary
property and the said status will not change on the birth of the plaintiff.
He points out that even if plaintiff Rohit Chauhan was born at the time of
partition between defendant no. 2, his father and brothers, plaintiff would
not have got any share under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. In
support of the submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of this
Court in the case of Bhanwar Singh v. Puran, (2008) 3 SCC 87 and our
attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment:
“13. Section 6 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time,
provided for devolution of interest in the coparcenary property.
Section 8 lays down the general rules of succession that the
property of a male dying intestate devolves according to the
provisions of the Chapter as specified in Clause (1) of the
Schedule. In the Schedule appended to the Act, natural sons and
daughters are placed as Class I heirs but a grandson, so long as
father is alive, has not been included. Section 19 of the Act
provides that in the event of succession by two or more heirs,
they will take the property per capita and not per stripes, as
also tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.”
We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submission and we find
substance in the submission of Mr. Rao. In our opinion coparcenary property
means the property which consists of ancestral property and a coparcener
would mean a person who shares equally with others in inheritance in the
estate of common ancestor. Coparcenary is a narrower body than the Joint
Hindu family and before commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, only male members of the family used to acquire by birth an interest
in the coparcenary property. A coparcener has no definite share in the
coparcenary property but he has an undivided interest in it and one has to
bear in mind that it enlarges by deaths and diminishes by births in the
family. It is not static. We are further of the opinion that so long, on
partition an ancestral property remains in the hand of a single person, it
has to be treated as a separate property and such a person shall be
entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his
separate property but if a son is subsequently born, the alienation made
before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the moment a son is born, the
property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest
in that and become a coparcener. The view which we have taken finds
support from a judgment of this Court in the case of M. Yogendra v.
Leelamma N., (2009) 15 SCC 184, in which it has been held as follows:
“29. It is now well settled in view of several decisions of this
Court that
the property in the hands of a sole coparcener
allotted to him in partition shall be his separate property for
the same
shall revive only when a son is born to him.
It is one thing to say that the property remains a coparcenary property but it is another thing to say that it revives.
The distinction
between the two is absolutely clear and unambiguous.
In the case
of former any sale or alienation which has been done by the sole
survivor coparcener shall be valid
whereas in the case of a coparcener any alienation made by the karta would be valid.”
Now referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Bhanwar
Singh (supra), relied on by respondents, the same is clearly
distinguishable. In the said case the issue was in relation to succession
whereas in the present case we are concerned with the status of the
plaintiff vis-à-vis his father who got property on partition of the
ancestral property.
A person,
who for the time being is the sole surviving coparcener as
in the present case Gulab Singh was,
before the birth of the plaintiff, was
entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property.
Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was
competent to sell, mortgage and deal with the property as his property in the manner he liked.
Had he done so before the birth of plaintiff,
Rohit Chauhan, he was not competent to object to the alienation made by his father before he was born or begotten.
But, in the present case,
it is an
admitted position that the property which defendant no. 2 got on partition was an ancestral property and till the birth of the plaintiff he was sole surviving coparcener but the moment plaintiff was born, he got a share in the father’s property and became a coparcener.
As observed earlier, in view
of the settled legal position, the property in the hands of defendant no. 2 allotted to him in partition was a separate property till the birth of the plaintiff and, therefore, after his birth defendant no. 2 could have alienated the property only as Karta for legal necessity.
It is nobody’s
case that defendant no. 2 executed the sale deeds and release deed as Karta for any legal necessity.
Hence, the sale deeds and the release deed
executed by Gulab Singh to the extent of entire coparcenary property are illegal, null and void.
However, in respect of the property which would
have fallen in the share of Gulab Singh at the time of execution of sale-deeds and release deed, the parties can work out their remedies in appropriate proceeding.
In view of what we have observed above, the view taken by the lower
appellate court as affirmed by the High Court is erroneous in law.
In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree
of the lower appellate court as affirmed by the High Court and restore that
of the trial court with the liberty aforementioned. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………………………………………J
(CHANDRAMAULI
KR. PRASAD)
………..……….………………………………..J
(V.GOPALA GOWDA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 15, 2013.
-----------------------
17
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5475 OF 2013
(@ SLP (C) No. 22388 of 2011)
ROHIT CHAUHAN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
SURINDER SINGH & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.
Sole plaintiff Rohit Chauhan is the appellant before us.
His
grandfather Budhu had three sons, namely, Gulab Singh, Zile Singh and one
Ram Kumar.
Gulab Singh, father of the plaintiff, has been arrayed as
defendant no. 2, whereas son of Zile Singh i.e. Surinder Singh figures as
defendant no. 1 in the suit. In partition between Budhu and his three sons,
defendant no. 2 got 1/4 share i.e., 72 Kanals of land.
In the said
partition Budhu also got 72 Kanals of land and he bequeathed 1/4 of his
share i.e., 18 Kanals to each of his three sons and kept with himself 18
Kanals.
After the death of Budhu, defendant no. 2 inherited 1/3 share
i.e., 6 Kanals and in this way plaintiff’s father Gulab Singh, defendant
no. 2,got 96 Kanals of land. Defendant No.2 during his lifetime also
acquired 8 Kanals of land from the income of the properties which he got in
partition amongst his father and brothers.
At the time of partition
defendant no. 2 was unmarried. But later on, Gulab Singh was married to
defendant no. 7, Rajesh Rani and from the wedlock the plaintiff as also
defendant no. 6 were born. Plaintiff was born on 25th of March, 1982.
Plaintiff alleged that his father defendant no. 2 executed two separate
sale deeds on 19th of May, 2000 selling 8 Kanals of land acquired from
joint family funds to defendant nos. 3 to 5.
It is further allegation of
the plaintiff that his father illegally gifted 96 Kanals of land in favour
of defendant no. 1 Surinder Singh, the son of his real brother Zile Singh
by way of release deed dated 28th of May, 2004. On the basis of the
release deed and the sale deeds, the defendants claiming interest therein
got their names mutated and attested in the revenue records.
It is the case
of the plaintiff that the property received by his father is ancestral
property and, therefore, alienation of the same by him is null and void.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff prayed for
declaration that the release deed, sale deeds and the mutation entries made
on that basis are illegal, null and void and not binding on him, Varsha
(defendant no. 6) and Rajesh Rani (defendant no. 7).
Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and, according to him, the
plaintiff, his mother Rajesh Rani and minor sister Varsha were living
separately from defendant No. 2 and there was no good relation between
them. They were not even on talking terms. According to defendant no. 1,
he and his family members were rendering service and giving honour to
defendant no. 2 and he was residing with them as their family member.
Defendant no. 1 further averred that out of love, affection and service
rendered by him, defendant no. 2 was pleased and, as such, he executed a
release deed in his favour and on that basis mutation entries were made.
It is the plea of defendant no.1 that the land in question became the self
acquired property of defendant no. 2 after partition and, therefore, he was
competent to transfer the property in the manner he desired. Defendant no.
1 further alleged that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 2 in favour
of defendant nos. 3 to 5 is legal and valid. Defendant no. 2 supported the
case of defendant no. 1 and adopted the written statement filed by him.
Defendant nos. 3 to 5 filed their separate written statements and supported
the plea of defendant no. 1 and averred that the sale deeds and the release
deed were validly executed. On the basis of the aforesaid pleading of the
parties various issues have been framed including the following issues:
“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
declaration to the effect that impugned release deed dt.28.5.2004 and mutation no.3365 entered and attested in
lieu of impugned release deed and further two sale deeds
dt.19.5.2000 bearing no.272/1 and 273/1 and mutation no.3110
and 3106 entered and attested on the basis of impugned two
sale deeds and further revenue entries are wrong, illegal
and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and
defendants no. 6 & 7?”
The trial court, on analysis of the materials placed on record and the
legal position, came to the conclusion that the property which defendant
no. 2 got by virtue of the partition decree amongst his father and brothers
was although separate property qua other relations but it attained the
characteristics of coparcenary property after the plaintiff Rohit Chauhan
was born. The finding recorded by the trial court in this regard reads as
follows:
“21. No doubt Gulab Singh got some of his share in the property
described in para no. 1(a) of the plaint through his father
Budhu vide mutation no. 3089 in which the father Budhu suffered
a decree in favour of defendant no. 1 along with Zile Singh and
Ram Kumar of 3/4th share but in the year 1969 when the said
decree was passed Gulab Singh was unmarried and he had got
alienated the land which had come to his share when Rohit
Chauhan, Plaintiff came into existence i.e. on 25.3.1982.
Meaning thereby that the property which Gulab Singh had got by
the decree was although his separate property qua other relation
but became JHF property immediately when Rohit Chauhan was born
thereby getting characteristic of coparcenary property.”
Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit.
Defendant no. 1, aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal and it was
his plea that the property received by defendant 2 on partition will become
his separate property and requires to be treated as his self acquired
property and, therefore, defendant no. 2 was free to deal with the property
in the manner he liked. In other words, according to defendant no. 1,
after partition the property falling in the share of defendant no. 2 lost
its character as a coparcenary property and assumed the status of self
acquired property. The aforesaid plea found favour with the lower
appellate court and it held that the property which defendant no. 2 got on
partition “lost the character of coparcenary property and became the self
acquired property of Gulab Singh”. The lower appellate court further held
that once the property is held to be self acquired property of Gulab Singh,
he had every right to deal with the same in any manner he liked. Relevant
portion of the judgment of the lower appellate court reads as
follows:
“13. In the light of above said precedents it can be readily
concluded that only when the property which is received by a
person from his ancestors by survivorship can be held to be
ancestral/coparcenary property and any other property which
although, might have been received from the ancestors by means
of will or consent decree or a father partitioned the property,
will loose its character as that of coparcenary property and
will become self acquired property in the hands of person
receiving it. Applying these precedents to the facts of the
present case, this Court will conclude that approximately 96
Kanals of land was received by Gulab Singh from his father Budhu
on the basis of consent decree or on the basis of will and not
by survivorship and this property lost the character of
coparcenary property and was self acquired property of Gulab
Singh. The version of plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in the present
case is that rest of the property was acquired by Gulab Singh
with the funds originated from joint Hindu family property and
the said property also assumed the character of joint Hindu
family property, also cannot be sustained because the major
chunk of land in the hands of Gulab Singh has been held to be
non-ancestral property and rather self acquired property of
Gulab Singh.
14. Once the property involved in the suit has been held to be
self acquired property of Gulab Singh then Gulab Singh was
having every right to deal with the same in any manner he liked
and no embargo can be put on the rights of Gulab Singh as well
as his rights to alienate the suit property are concerned and
thus neither release deed nor sale deeds executed by Gulab Singh
can be questioned by anyone much less by son of Gulab Singh…………”
Accordingly, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set
aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit.
Plaintiff, aggrieved by the same, preferred second appeal and the High
Court dismissed the second appeal in limine and, while doing so, observed
as follows:
“………Finding of the lower appellate court that the suit land is
not proved to be ancestral or coparcenary property is fully
justified by the documentary evidence and admitted facts…….”
This is how the plaintiff is before us.
Leave granted.
Mr. L.Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff-appellant submits that at the time when the plaintiff’s father
Gulab Singh got the property in partition, it was his separate property vis-
à-vis his relations but after the birth of the plaintiff on 25th of March,
1982, plaintiff acquired interest in the property as a coparcener. Mr.
Satinder S. Gulati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-
respondents, however, submits that once the property fell into the share of
the plaintiff’s father Gulab Singh, it lost the character of a coparcenary
property and the said status will not change on the birth of the plaintiff.
He points out that even if plaintiff Rohit Chauhan was born at the time of
partition between defendant no. 2, his father and brothers, plaintiff would
not have got any share under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. In
support of the submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of this
Court in the case of Bhanwar Singh v. Puran, (2008) 3 SCC 87 and our
attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment:
“13. Section 6 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time,
provided for devolution of interest in the coparcenary property.
Section 8 lays down the general rules of succession that the
property of a male dying intestate devolves according to the
provisions of the Chapter as specified in Clause (1) of the
Schedule. In the Schedule appended to the Act, natural sons and
daughters are placed as Class I heirs but a grandson, so long as
father is alive, has not been included. Section 19 of the Act
provides that in the event of succession by two or more heirs,
they will take the property per capita and not per stripes, as
also tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.”
We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submission and we find
substance in the submission of Mr. Rao. In our opinion coparcenary property
means the property which consists of ancestral property and a coparcener
would mean a person who shares equally with others in inheritance in the
estate of common ancestor. Coparcenary is a narrower body than the Joint
Hindu family and before commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, only male members of the family used to acquire by birth an interest
in the coparcenary property. A coparcener has no definite share in the
coparcenary property but he has an undivided interest in it and one has to
bear in mind that it enlarges by deaths and diminishes by births in the
family. It is not static. We are further of the opinion that so long, on
partition an ancestral property remains in the hand of a single person, it
has to be treated as a separate property and such a person shall be
entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his
separate property but if a son is subsequently born, the alienation made
before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the moment a son is born, the
property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest
in that and become a coparcener. The view which we have taken finds
support from a judgment of this Court in the case of M. Yogendra v.
Leelamma N., (2009) 15 SCC 184, in which it has been held as follows:
“29. It is now well settled in view of several decisions of this
Court that
the property in the hands of a sole coparcener
allotted to him in partition shall be his separate property for
the same
shall revive only when a son is born to him.
It is one thing to say that the property remains a coparcenary property but it is another thing to say that it revives.
The distinction
between the two is absolutely clear and unambiguous.
In the case
of former any sale or alienation which has been done by the sole
survivor coparcener shall be valid
whereas in the case of a coparcener any alienation made by the karta would be valid.”
Now referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Bhanwar
Singh (supra), relied on by respondents, the same is clearly
distinguishable. In the said case the issue was in relation to succession
whereas in the present case we are concerned with the status of the
plaintiff vis-à-vis his father who got property on partition of the
ancestral property.
A person,
who for the time being is the sole surviving coparcener as
in the present case Gulab Singh was,
before the birth of the plaintiff, was
entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property.
Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was
competent to sell, mortgage and deal with the property as his property in the manner he liked.
Had he done so before the birth of plaintiff,
Rohit Chauhan, he was not competent to object to the alienation made by his father before he was born or begotten.
But, in the present case,
it is an
admitted position that the property which defendant no. 2 got on partition was an ancestral property and till the birth of the plaintiff he was sole surviving coparcener but the moment plaintiff was born, he got a share in the father’s property and became a coparcener.
As observed earlier, in view
of the settled legal position, the property in the hands of defendant no. 2 allotted to him in partition was a separate property till the birth of the plaintiff and, therefore, after his birth defendant no. 2 could have alienated the property only as Karta for legal necessity.
It is nobody’s
case that defendant no. 2 executed the sale deeds and release deed as Karta for any legal necessity.
Hence, the sale deeds and the release deed
executed by Gulab Singh to the extent of entire coparcenary property are illegal, null and void.
However, in respect of the property which would
have fallen in the share of Gulab Singh at the time of execution of sale-deeds and release deed, the parties can work out their remedies in appropriate proceeding.
In view of what we have observed above, the view taken by the lower
appellate court as affirmed by the High Court is erroneous in law.
In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree
of the lower appellate court as affirmed by the High Court and restore that
of the trial court with the liberty aforementioned. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………………………………………J
(CHANDRAMAULI
KR. PRASAD)
………..……….………………………………..J
(V.GOPALA GOWDA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 15, 2013.
-----------------------
17
