MOOT PROPOSITION

Sohan Lal was head of the Hindu joint family consisting of his wife, two sons and an unmarried daughter as depicted in the pedigree table given herein below:-

Sohan Lal

Gayatri Devi (Wife)

Mohan Lal (Married Son)

Sham Lal (un-married Son)

Kavita (un-married Daughter)

Sohan lal was running a joint family business with his sons at Nabha (Punjab) by diverting a major portion of the income, yielded from 200 acres of ancestral land, into the business of the family. All members of the joint family were living in an ancestral house. Mohan Lal had three sons; namely, Sant Ram, Ram Lal and Bant Lal and one daughter Geeta Devi as shown in the pedigree table below:Mohan Lal Sant Ram Ram Lal Bant Lal Geeta Devi

Sohan Lal and his wife died in the year 1985 and 1986 respectively. After the death of his father, Mohan Lal became the head of the family. On becoming the head of the family he undertook a large scale diversification of business which was shifted to Patiala. And in order to augment the joint family business, Mohan Lal sold 10 acres of ancestral land for rupees 10 crores to the
1

Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala.

He also made a gift of Rs. 10 lacs in favour of his

un-married daughter (Geeta Devi). Bant Lal, the youngest son of Mohan Lal was sent to England for higher education at the expenses of the family. After doing Bar-at-law, he returned to India and established a flourishing practice as an Advocate. Although he was staying in the joint family, he kept all his earnings for himself, which was not liked by his two elder brothers and the sister. Frustrated and depressed by the behaviour of his own sons, Mohan Lal died of heart attack in 2006. Realising the reactionary behaviour of her brothers, Geeta Devi (daughter of Mohan Lal) filed a suit in the year 2007 for declaration of ownership as coparcener and co-sharer in the joint family property wherein she also made a prayer for joint possession of the property in dispute that included agricultural land, business assets/goodwill and ancestral house. She also prayed that income of Bant Lal advocate be included in the joint property of the family. The alienation made by Mohan Lal in favour of Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala was also challenged. In this suit she impleaded all her three brothers, Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala and her uncle Sham Lal as defendants. In order to establish her claim, Geeta Devi (plaintiff) invoked section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants pleaded that (i) the alienation in favour of Punjab and Sind Bank was for legal necessity and benefit of estate and, therefore, valid; (ii) the amendment made by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was prospective and the alienation under challenge being prior to the amendment was not affected by the change in law and that (iii) the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 being wholly against the concept of coparcenary and joint Hindu Family property in law is illegal, non-est and ultra-vires. Argue for the parties on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant.
2