Back
Cracks Down on Tactics in Family Feud Over Inheritance
In a pointed rebuke to tactical litigation, the dismissed an application under seeking proceedings against a defendant in a heated sibling dispute over their late father's estate. Justice Subramonium Prasad ruled that mere allegations of inconsistencies in affidavits do not warrant parallel probes, urging parties to resolve such claims in the main trial. The case, Nisha Chandola & Anr v. Manoj Sharma & Anr (CS(OS) 246/2023), highlights rising concerns over misuse of pleas.
From Father's Legacy to Courtroom Clash
The dispute traces back to the of Ram Chander Sharma—earlier referred to as Ramesh Chandra Sharma in affidavits—on . His daughters, plaintiffs Nisha Chandola and another, filed a suit for , , and recovery from suit properties, fearing misappropriation by their brother, defendant Manoj Sharma. Properties listed include real estate in Karkardooma, Patparganj industrial land, Noida premises linked to M/s Ambika Garments Pvt. Ltd., bank fixed deposits worth over Rs. 15 crore with Bank of Baroda, mutual funds, and more.
Court orders in and directed Manoj Sharma to disclose inherited assets via affidavits. He complied on , and , detailing properties bequeathed via a will, company shares, bank balances, and clarifying that firm assets like the Noida property and HDFC account belong to the company, not personally inherited.
Plaintiffs Cry Foul, Defendant Pushes Back
Plaintiff Nisha Chandola, appearing in person, alleged Manoj Sharma deliberately filed false statements and forged documents in his affidavits and written statement to deceive the court and interfere with justice. She highlighted contradictions, such as asset disclosures and company finances, claiming they backed only by dubious papers.
Manoj Sharma's counsel, , countered that the application was frivolous, with disclosures fully compliant and already referenced in prior pleadings. Sharma maintained inheritance via will, nominee status on FDs and mutual funds, and no personal transfer of company assets—insisting the firm remains a non-party.
Why Probe Falls Short: Court's Sharp Reasoning
Justice Prasad scrutinized the application, noting it rested on unproven contradictions rather than establishing offenses under
, which covers
provisions like
(
),
(
), and related crimes.
"A bare reading... reveals that the Plaintiff No.1 has merely alleged the correctness of the details... The allegations
cannot attract the ingredients under Section 340,"
the court held.
Emphasizing , the judge refused parallel proceedings: falsity must emerge in the main trial. No precedents were cited, but the ruling draws on the high threshold for Section 340 inquiries, distinguishing mere disputes from deliberate falsehoods warranting prosecution.
As legal reports note, this aligns with growing judicial frustration over Section 340's weaponization in civil suits.
Judge's Stark Warnings That Echo Beyond This Case
Key Observations from the judgment:
"In the opinion of this Court, these offences are not made out at this juncture. The falsity of the statements made in the affidavits will have to be established in the present trial."
"This Court is observing that now a practice has been made by the parties of filing applications under Section 340 of theonly with an idea of arm-twisting the other side or putting pressure and also to delay the trial."
"The instant application is filed only with an intent to derail this Court from proceeding further with the matter and also to harass the Defendant No. 1."
The court spared costs given the plaintiff's in-person status but granted liberty to refile if trial evidence proves .
Suit Lives On, Bid Buried
The CRL.M.A. 6275/2026 stands dismissed, with the main suit listed for . This decision signals stricter scrutiny of Section 340 applications in civil disputes, potentially deterring delay tactics in inheritance battles. For families locked in asset wars, it underscores: prove your claims in trial, not through side-door prosecutions. Future litigants may think twice before wielding as a pressure tool.
