Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 583
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR
Vikram Singh & Another
Versus
Ajit Inder Singh
RFA (OS) No. 87 of 2012
Decided On : 24-02-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: in person.
For the Respondent:Rajiv Sawhney, Senior Advocate instructed by Arjun Singh Bawa, Advocate.
The legal principle of election applies when there are multiple rights available to a party on the same subject, allowing the party to elect which right to avail of.
Headnote:
Co-ownership - Family Settlement - Deed of Family Settlement - [Co-ownership] - [Family Settlement] - [Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Registration Act, 1908, Court Fees Act, 1870] - The court discussed the admissibility of the Deed of Family Settlement, coercion, proper court fee, and the legal principle of election. The court held that the Deed of Family Settlement did not require registration, coercion was not established, proper court fee was affixed, and the legal principle of election applied.
Fact of the Case:
Late Col.Inderjeet Singh filed a suit for partition against his sister, Ms.Anant Verinder Singh, claiming ownership of a property inherited from their late father. Ms.Anant Verinder Singh admitted the execution of a Memorandum of Family Settlement but later claimed coercion. The court addressed the admissibility of the settlement, coercion, and proper court fee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deed of Family Settlement did not require registration, coercion was not established, proper court fee was affixed, and the legal principle of election applied. The court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs on the appellant.
Issues: Admissibility of the Deed of Family Settlement, coercion, proper court fee, and the legal principle of election.
Ratio Decidendi: The Deed of Family Settlement did not require registration, coercion was not established, proper court fee was affixed, and the legal principle of election applied.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs on the appellant.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Late Col.Inderjeet Singh, the husband of the respondent Ms.Ajit Inder Singh, filed a suit for partition against his sister Ms.Anant Verinder Singh (mother of the appellants) pleading that property bearing Municipal No.D-57, Defence Colony, New Delhi was owned by their late father Gurcharan Singh who died in June, 1968 leaving behind his wife Ms.K.Gurcharan Singh, his son Col.Inderjeet Singh and his daughter Ms.Anant Verinder Singh as the legal heirs. The three inherited the property, the mother having 2/3rd share and the two siblings 1/3rd each. (In what manner the inheritance was as in the shares pleaded in the plaint was not stated.) He further pleaded that on the demise of Ms.K.Gurcharan Singh on January 09, 2001, the two siblings executed a Memorandum of Family Settlement on April 09, 2001 acknowledging each having half share in the property. Pleading that the property was not partitioned, partition of the property was prayed for. Vide IA No.4137/2002 Late Col.Inderjeet Singh sought an interim injunction against his sister to restrain her from alienating the suit property, pleading an apprehension that she was trying to sell the same.
2. On summons being served in the suit and notice in IA No.4137/2002, on July 11, 2002 Ms.Anant Verinder Singh filed a written response to IA No.4137/2002. She did not file a written statement. In the response filed she admitted that vide perpetual lease-deed dated January 30, 1963, Late Sh.Gurcharan Singh had been conferred perpetual lease-hold rights in land bearing Municipal No.D-57, Defence Colony, New Delhi and that he expired in June, 1969. Admitting that he was survived by his widow Ms.Kartar Gurcharan Singh, a son Col.Inderjeet Singh (plaintiff) and a daughter Ms.Anant Verinder Singh (defendant), it was additionally pleaded that he was survived by another son named Sarbaland Singh. Stating that a will dated December 12, 1965 was executed by Gurcharan Singh, it was pleaded that as per the will half share in the property was bequeathed by Late Gurcharan Singh to his wife Ms.Kartar Gurcharan Singh and the remaining half share was bequeathed, in equal proportion, to the three siblings i.e. Sarbaland Singh, Col.Inderjeet Singh and Ms.Anant Verinder Singh; each having 1/6th share. It was pleaded that on the demise of Sarbaland Singh on January 01, 1974, his 1/6th share was inherited by his mother Ms.Kartar Gurcharan Singh and thus as of January 01, 1974 the share of Ms.Kartar Gurcharan Singh, Col.Inderjeet Singh and Ms.Anant Verinder Singh in the suit property was 2/3rd, 1/6th and 1/6th respectively. It was pleaded that in the year 1992, with consent of the three co-owners, Late Brig.Verinder Singh, husband of Ms.Anant Verinder Singh constructed a second floor having built up area 838 square feet. Admitting that Ms.Kartar Gurcharan Singh died on January 09, 2001 and was survived by Col.Inderjeet Singh and Ms.Anant Verinder Singh as her legal heirs, it was pleaded that since Ms.Kartar Gurcharan Singh had executed a will on June 15, 1990 bequeathing her 2/3rd share in the property to Ms.Anant Verinder Singh, the share of the parties would be : Ms.Anant Verinder Singh – 5/6th share; Col.Inderjeet Singh – 1/6th share. Admitting that on April 09, 2001 a family agreement was executed between Ms.Anant Verinder Singh and Col.Inderjeet Singh, it was sought to be explained that the family arrangement would mean, and we quote para 11 of the reply:-
“11. On 9th April, 2001 a family agreement was signed between Mrs.Anant Verinder Singh AND Col.Inderjeet Singh. The said agreement gave Col.Inderjeet Singh and his family the right to reside on the ground floor premises currently occupied by a tenant against whom eviction proceedings are in progress. The clause “share the house bearing No.D-57, Defence Colony in equal share” contained in the family agreement, it is reiterated means the right to reside on the ground floor premises. Of the second floor premises 838 sq.ft. out o
