Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 249
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Jugal Kishore Khanna(D) Thr Lrs & Anr. – Appellants
A1: Jugal Kishore Khanna (D) Thr. Lrs.
A1.1: Prabhat Khanna
A1.2: Rohit Khanna
A2: Manmohan Khanna
Versus
Sudhir Khanna & Ors. – Respondents
R1: Sudhir Khanna
R2: Raman Khanna
R3: Shyama Khanna (D) Thr. LRs
R3.1: Sudhir Khanna
R3.2: Raman Khanna
R3.3: Geeta Sethi
Civil Appeal No. 1591 & 1592 of 2020
Decided On : 19-03-2024
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjav Jain, Adv. Ms. Ishita Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv. Ms. Megha Gaur, Adv. Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Exclusive owners of property can always have claim over such property.
Headnote:
Property Law – Partition – As far as Malcha Marg property is concerned, Court has no hesitation to uphold concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court that there is nothing, even remotely, to indicate that said property was bought out of joint family funds and rightly it has been held to be exclusive property of respondents – There was no occasion for appellants to contribute a heavy amount of Rs. 55,000/- in year 1979 for upkeep and/or maintenance of property to respondents, when same was exclusively being enjoyed by appellants who alone would be liable for its maintenance – Appellants have enjoyed possession right from time property was purchased and even letting out premises to tenants and collecting/taking rent from tenants without any claim raised at any point of time – Respondents never claimed any share in such proceeds/ rent from tenants in property – Appellants are exclusive owners of property – Impugned Judgment of High Court needs interference – Impugned Judgment partly upheld. (Paras 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in present appeals is to the common Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2013 passed by Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, wherein the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 in respect of Kamla Nagar property i.e. RFA No. 439 of 2008, has been allowed and appeal filed by the appellants in respect of Malcha Marg property i.e. RFA No. 483 of 2008, has been dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Impugned Judgment insofar as it relates to RFA No. 483 of 2008 is upheld. Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 1591 of 2020 is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 1592 of 2020 is dismissed. Interim orders of status quo stand vacated. Registry to draw up the Decree Sheet accordingly.
Result : Civil Appeal No. 1591 of 2020 allowed and Civil Appeal No. 1592 of 2020 dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”)1 [2013 DHC 6299 : 2013 SCC Online Del. 4916] passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), wherein the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 in respect of the Kamla Nagar property2 [Defined Infra] i.e. RFA No. 439 of 2008, has been allowed and the appeal filed by the appellants in respect of the Malcha Marg property3 [Defined Infra] i.e. RFA No. 483 of 2008, has been dismissed.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
3. The parties are common descendants of Late Shri Tek Chand Khanna (hereinafter referred to as “TCK”), who had two sons, Shri Roop Kishore Khanna (hereinafter referred to as “RKK”) and Shri Attar Chand Khanna (hereinafter referred to as “ACK”). The appellants are descendants of RKK whereas the respondents are the successors of ACK. In the year 1941, RKK purchased a piece of land admeasuring 344 square yards and bearing No. 15-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Kamla Nagar property”) in the name of his father TCK and a residential house was constructed thereupon in 1950. Another property admeasuring 375 square yards bearing No. D-56, Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Malcha Marg property”) was also acquired by RKK and constructed by the family in the name of Smt. Shyama Khanna, wife of ACK. The claim of the appellants is that the purchase and construction of the Malcha Marg property was out of the funds provided by RKK and the income of the family generated from Regal Cinema Business. RKK died in the year 1978 and after that ACK claimed share in the Kamla Nagar property claiming it to be joint family property. The appellants claim that in 1979, in terms of an oral settlement between the parties a sum of Rs. 55,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Thousand) was paid through cheques by the LRs of RKK in favour of ACK for the purchase of the share of ACK in the Kamla Nagar property. In 1983, upon ACK having expired, his LRs filed two suits. One claiming partition of the properties at Shimla and another claiming partition of the Kamla Nagar property. The Trial Court by order dated 28.07.2008 dismissed the suit of the Respondent No. 1 with regard to the claim over the Kamla Nagar property. However, insofar as the Malcha Marg property is concerned, the Trial Court decided the issue of the suit being bad on account of partial partition against the appellants, on the ground that circumstances given by the appellants are not sufficient to prove that the Malcha Marg property was purchased out of joint family funds. The Respondent No. 1 challenged the Trial Court order, so far as the same pertained to the Kamla Nagar property, by filing RFA No. 439 of 2008 before the High Court whereas the appellants challenged the decision of the Trial Court pertaining to the Malcha Marg property by preferring RFA No. 483 of 2008.
4. By the common Impugned Judgment dated 06.12.2013, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1 [RFA No. 439 of 2008] and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants [RFA No. 483 of 2008]. The instant Civil Appeals emanate therefrom.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
Re Kamla Nagar:
5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court [the Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi] dated 28.07.2008 held that Kamla Nagar property belongs solely to the appellants on very cogent grounds i.e. the same was originally joint/ancestral property between RKK and ACK having been bought in the name of TCK and later the 50% share of ACK being bought by the appellants in a family settlement. It was pointed out that when suggestion was put to DW1 and DW2 being Defendant No. 2 and LRs of deceased Defendant No. 1 respectively, in cross-examination, payment of
