Ranbir Singh Vs Kamla Devi

These two Regular Second Appeals arise out of separate but factually interlinked disputes rela+ng to succession to agricultural land measuring 95 kanal 10 marla situated in Village Balwari, Tehsil and District Rewari. Since both appeals involve interpreta+on of the scheme of

¶23

SARITA RANI 2026.03.06 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶24

RSA No.3913 of 2003 (O&M) RSA No.1227 of 2010 (O&M)

¶25

2026:PHHC: 034163

¶26

succession under Sec+on 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the legal effect of compromise decrees purpor+ng to transfer of immovable property, they are being decided by this common judgment.

¶27

The factual matrix as borne out from the record including trial court record available on DMS, is as under:

¶28

The plain+ff, Ranbir Singh @ Raghbir Singh, is in appeal in RSA No.3913 of 2003 against the concurrent findings of the Courts below dismissing his suit for declara+on challenging a decree dated 06.03.1993 suffered by Smt. Chand Bai in favour of Kamla Devi. RSA No.1227 of 2010 arises from a similar challenge by the same plain+ff to a decree dated 05.06.1992 suffered by Smt. Sona Devi in favour of Chand Singh.

¶29

RSA No.3913 of 2003 :

¶30

So far as RSA No.3913 of 2003 is concerned, the undisputed facts are that Sanehi Singh was the owner of the land in dispute. Upon his death, the property devolved upon his sons Balla @ Balbir Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Raghbir Singh (plain+ff), Multan Singh, and Smt. Sona Devi widow of his predeceased son Mam Chand, each to the extent of one-fourth share. On the death of Multan Singh, his one-fourth share devolved upon his widow Smt. Chand Bai, vide muta+on dated 17.11.1987. It is admi ed that Multan Singh and Chand Bai were issueless.

¶31

During her life+me, Smt. Chand Bai suffered a decree dated 06.03.1993 in favour of Kamla Devi. Muta+on was sanc+oned on the basis of that decree. Chand Bai died on 02.10.1994. The plain+ff, being the surviving brother of Multan Singh, ins+tuted the present suit contending that upon the death of Chand Bai without issue, the property inherited by her from her husband must revert to the heirs of the husband in terms of Sec+on 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He inter alia asserted that Kamla Devi was neither related nor adopted and that the decree in her favour, crea+ng fresh rights in immovable property, required compulsory registra+on and, being unregistered, was void and inopera+ve.

¶32

SARITA RANI 2026.03.06 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶33

Page 2 of 7

¶34

RSA No.3913 of 2003 (O&M) RSA No.1227 of 2010 (O&M)

¶35

2026:PHHC: 034163

¶36

The defendant Kamla Devi contested the suit on the plea that she had been brought up by Chand Bai and Multan Singh since childhood and was treated as their adopted daughter. However, neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence was there any asser+on of a formal adop+on ceremony. In her cross-examina+on, she admi ed that no adop+on ceremony had taken place.

¶37

The trial Court, on apprecia+on of evidence, dismissed the suit on 13.03.2001, holding that Chand Bai, being absolute owner, was competent to suffer the decree, and that the defendant was treated as adopted daughter. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.05.2003, while no+cing absence of proof of adop+on, nevertheless affirmed the decree on the reasoning that the defendant had been brought up by Chand Bai.

¶38

8.1 Shri Rajinder Goel, Learned counsel for the appellant–plain+ff assails the concurrent findings on the ground that although Smt. Chand Bai was the absolute owner of the property inherited from her husband, she admi edly died issueless. It is contended that there is neither any pleading nor any evidence to establish that the defendant–Kamla Devi was ever legally adopted by Chand Bai or her husband Multan Singh. Ld. Counsel emphasizes that Kamla Devi herself admi ed in her tes+mony that no adop+on ceremony had taken place. Mere upbringing by Chand Bai and Multan Singh, or the descrip+on of Kamla Devi as their daughter in a marriage invita+on card, does not confer the legal status of an adopted daughter in the absence of compliance with statutory requirements.

¶39

8.2 It is further argued that Kamla Devi was not even remotely related to Chand Bai or Multan Singh, and had no legally recognizable claim to the estate. Invoking Sec+on 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, learned counsel submits that upon the death of Chand Bai without issue, the property inherited from her husband must devolve upon the heirs of the husband. Since Multan Singh had predeceased her and the plain+ff is his only surviving brother, he alone is en+tled to succeed. It is also contended that

¶40

SARITA RANI 2026.03.06 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶41

Page 3 of 7

¶42

RSA No.3913 of 2003 (O&M) RSA No.1227 of 2010 (O&M)

¶43

2026:PHHC: 034163

¶44

the decree dated 06.03.1993, having been suffered in favour of a stranger without antecedent right, created fresh rights in immovable property and required compulsory registra+on and that in the absence of such registra+on, it conveyed no valid +tle. The appellant, therefore, seeks seHng aside of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and decreeing of the suit.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–defendant submits that no interference is warranted in second appeal against concurrent findings of fact. It is argued that Kamla Devi had always been treated as the adopted daughter of Chand Bai and Multan Singh and that her marriage was performed by them, demonstra+ng their inten+on to treat her as their child. Ld. Counsel contends that in these circumstances, the decree dated 06.03.1993 cannot be invalidated merely on the ground of nonregistra+on and that the Courts below rightly upheld its validity. Dismissal of the appeal is accordingly prayed for.

¶46

Upon considera+on, this Court finds that the approach adopted by the Courts below is legally unsustainable.

¶47

The scheme of Sec+on 15 of the Hindu Succession Act is explicit. Sub-sec+on (1) lays down the general order of succession in the case of female Hindu dying intestate. However, sub-sec+on (2)(b) carves out a specific excep+on, providing that property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter, upon the heirs of the husband.

¶48

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram (Dead) by LRs v. Teja Singh (Dead) by LRs, (2002) 1 SCC 210 , clearly held that property inherited by a widow from her husband reverts to the heirs of the husband, if she dies issueless. The same principle was reiterated in Omprakash and others v. Radhacharan and others, (2009) 15 SCC 66 , where the Court emphasised that Sec+on 15(2) overrides the general rule in Sec+on 15(1) in cases, where property is traceable to the husband.

¶49

SARITA RANI 2026.03.06 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶50

Page 4 of 7

¶51

RSA No.3913 of 2003 (O&M) RSA No.1227 of 2010 (O&M)

¶52

2026:PHHC: 034163

¶53

In the present case, it is undisputed that Chand Bai inherited the property from her husband Multan Singh and died without issue. Therefore, the estate must devolve upon the heirs of Multan Singh. The plain+ff, being his surviving brother, clearly falls within that category.

¶54

The plea of adop+on taken by the defendant is wholly untenable. Adop+on under Hindu law must sa+sfy the mandatory requirements of the Hindu Adop+ons and Maintenance Act, 1956. It is the consistent posi+on of law that adop+on must be strictly proved, including the essen+al ceremony of giving and taking. In the absence of such proof, no legal status of adopted child can be inferred merely from conduct or affec+on. The admission of the defendant that no adop+on ceremony took place is fatal to her plea.

¶55

The next and crucial ques+on concerns the validity of the decree dated 06.03.1993. It is well se led that a compromise decree crea+ng fresh rights in immovable property in favour of a person, who had no antecedent or pre-exis+ng right requires compulsory registra+on. In Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, (1995) 5 SCC 709, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a decree is not based upon pre-exis+ng rights but itself creates rights in immovable property, registra+on under Sec+on 17 of the Registra+on Act, 1908 is mandatory. The excep+on carved out in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolida-on and others, (1976) 3 SCC 119, applies only to bona fide family se lements between persons having antecedent +tle or even a possible claim.

¶56

In the present case, Kamla Devi had neither a pre-exis+ng right nor even a remote chance of succession. She was admi edly unrelated to Chand Bai or her husband Multan Singh, and not adopted. The decree in her favour was not in recogni+on of any antecedent claim but was a transfer of property to a stranger. Such a decree required compulsory registra+on. In the absence of registra+on, it does not confer +tle.

¶57

SARITA RANI 2026.03.06 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶58

Page 5 of 7

¶59

RSA No.3913 of 2003 (O&M) RSA No.1227 of 2010 (O&M)

¶60

2026:PHHC: 034163

¶61

Consequently, it is held that the concurrent findings of the Courts below suffer from misapplica+on of statutory provisions and binding precedents. The decree dated 06.03.1993 and the muta+on sanc+oned on its basis cannot stand. The plain+ff, being heir of Multan Singh under Sec+on 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is en+tled to succeed to the onefourth share of Chand Bai. Since he already held one-fourth share in his own right, he becomes owner to the extent of one-half share in the total holding.

¶62

Accordingly, RSA No.3913 of 2003 is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the plain+ff is decreed.

¶63

RSA No.1227 of 2010 :

¶64

Turning now to RSA No.1227 of 2010, a material and decisive factual dis+nc+on arises in the present appeal. This appeal concerns the onefourth share inherited by Smt. Sona Devi widow of Mam Chand. During her life+me, she suffered a decree dated 05.06.1992 in favour of Chand Singh. Upon her death, the plain+ff challenged that decree on grounds similar to those urged in the earlier appeal.

¶65

In RSA No.3913 of 2003, the beneficiary of the impugned decree, Kamla Devi, was admi edly a stranger to Smt. Chand Bai and had no blood rela+on or legally recognizable nexus with her or her husband. In contrast, in the present case, i.e., RSA No.1227 of 2010, the defendant Chand Singh is the real nephew of Smt. Sona Devi. This rela+onship is evident from the judgment & decree dated 05.06.1992 (Exs. P-6 and P-7), and during the course of arguments before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that Chand Singh is indeed the nephew of Smt. Sona Devi.

¶66

Once this factual posi+on is accepted, the legal consequence follows. Being a close collateral rela+ve of Smt. Sona Devi, Chand Singh had at least a remote but legally recognizable chance of succession to the estate of Smt. Sona Devi under Sec+on 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Where a person has such a possible or con+ngent claim to succession, a se lement

¶67

SARITA RANI 2026.03.06 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶68

Page 6 of 7

¶69

RSA No.3913 of 2003 (O&M) RSA No.1227 of 2010 (O&M)

¶70

2026:PHHC: 034163

¶71

or arrangement entered into with such a family member partakes the character of a family se lement.

¶72

It is well se led that a bona fide family arrangement between persons having antecedent or even a possible claim to the property does not require compulsory registra+on merely because it results in recogni+on or adjustment of rights. Therefore, the decree suffered by Smt. Sona Devi in favour of Chand Singh cannot be invalidated on the ground of nonregistra+on, as it was in favour of a person possessing a legi+mate and recognizable nexus to the estate.

¶73

In Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolida-on (supra), the Supreme Court held that a family se lement between persons having even a possible claim to the property is valid and need not be registered, if it recognises antecedent rights. The principle has also been followed by this court in Shakuntala Yadav v. Yadvinder Singh, 1998(3) RCR (Civil) 395.

¶74

It is thus clear that unlike the earlier case (RSA 3919-2003), where the beneficiary was a stranger, Chand Singh possessed a remote but legi+mate succession possibility. The decree in his favour can reasonably be construed as part of a family arrangement. In such circumstances, the requirement of compulsory registra+on does not arise.

¶75

The Courts below, therefore, commi ed no legal error in upholding that decree dated 5.6.1992 in favour of Chand Singh. RSA No.1227 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed.

¶76

In the result, RSA No.3913 of 2003 is allowed; and RSA No.1227 of 2010 is dismissed. A copy of this judgment be placed on the connected file.

¶77

March 06	, 2026	(DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned?	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable?	: Yes/No

¶78

Uploaded on: March 06, 2026

¶79

SARITA RANI 2026.03.06 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶80

Page 7 of 7

Ranbir Singh v. Kamla Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranbir Singh v. Kamla Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hy. etc. Vs Bhuri & Ors.

Sawarath Ram Vs Vijay Singh etc.

Balbir Vs Vijay Singh etc.

Guldev Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mast Ram and Ltd. Vs Diwan Chand and Others

Simran and Another Vs Rajesh Parsad Pathak and Others