Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
J.R. Midha, J.
Surjeet Kaur & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Crl. M.A. Nos. 5018/2013, 2446-47/2014 in Bail Appln. 64 of 2013
Decided On : 30-05-2014
The High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners for violating the undertaking given to the Court not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the complainant in the subject property. The Court held that the petitioners had time and again made contradictory statements and had repeatedly changed their stand. The Court also found that the petitioners had made false statements on oath before the Court and had misled the Court. The Court further held that the petitioners were not complying with the order dated 9th March, 2010 in FAO No. 91/2010 whereby the complainant is entitled to manage the subject property till disposal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute between the parties related to property bearing No. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which was owned by late Ranjit Singh Jutla who died intestate in the year 2003 leaving behind five legal representatives, namely, petitioner No. 1 (mother), Mrs. Jasbinder Kaur (wife) and three sons, namely, Mr. Sandeep Jutla, Harpal Jutla and Inderjeet Jutla. The complainant filed a petition under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of her husband late Ranjit Singh Jutla in respect of his movable and immovable estate including property No. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. The complainant also filed a contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the petitioner No. 1 seeking direction to appellant No. 1 to comply with the order dated 9th March, 2010 in FAO No. 91/2010 by not disturbing her peaceful possession. The complainant claimed to be in possession of the subject property in terms of the order dated 9th March, 2010 in FAO No. 91/2010 and alleged that petitioner No. 1 has twice broken open the locks whereupon the complainant has lodged complaints to the police on 5th February, 2011 and 4th March, 2011 against the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 filed a reply dated 30th August, 2011 in which she admitted that the subject property is under the lock and key of the complainant and petitioner No. 1 has also put her lock upon the lock of the complainant. The petitioner No. 1, in para 1 of the reply dated 30th August, 2011, took a contradictory stand and stated that the complainant has broken the locks. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against petitioner No. 1 on the ground that she was managing the subject property in terms of the order dated 9th March, 2010 in FAO No. 91/2010 and petitioner No. 1 broke the locks which was reported to the police on 5th February, 2011 vide DD No. 67 and no action has been taken by the police despite complaints dated 4th March, 2011 and 3rd May, 2012 against the petitioners. The police registered FIR No. 325/2012 dated 27th August, 2012 under Sections 191/441/109/504/201/451/192/442/16/506/203/457/193/445/120B/218/503/197/446 IPC, P.S. Dabri. The petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 30th November, 2012 on the ground that this Court vide order dated 9th March, 2010 has permitted the complainant to manage the subject property. The petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail being BA No. 64/2013 before this Court which was taken up on 15th January, 2013. During the course of hearing of the application, learned counsel for the petitioners gave an undertaking not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the complainant which was accepted by this Court. This Court also recorded the complainant to be in possession as per admitted case of the parties and the undertaking of the petitioners not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property by the complainant. This Court further granted liberty to the complainant to stay in the subject property. The petitioners and the complainant agreed to resolve their disputes through mediation on the terms that the existing structure of the subject property shall be demolished and a new building shall be constructed through a builder under a collaboration agreement; the cost of construction shall be borne by the builder and the parties shall receive their shares in terms of the order dated 15th July, 2013. The parties negotiated the various proposals given by the builder which are recorded in the orders dated 22nd October, 2013, 1st November, 2013, 25th November, 2013, 19th December, 2013 and 20th December, 2013. On 24th January, 2014, petitioner No. 1 changed her counsel who submitted that petitioner No. 1 has changed her mind and is not agreeable to execute the collaboration agreement. On 11th February, 2014, the complainant filed Crl. Misc.Appl.2446/2013 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and Crl. Misc.Appl.2447/2013 under Article 215 of the Constitution for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners. On 21st March, 2014, the parties again agreed to meet learned mediator to make an endeavour to resolve their disputes. In the meantime, there was change of counsel by the petitioners on 26th March, 2014. Mr. B.R. Handa, learned senior counsel appeared on 26th March, 2014 and sought time to amicably resolve the disputes between the parties. On 16th April, 2014, there was again change of the counsel by the petitioners. Dr. Shyamlha Pappu, learned senior counsel appeared on 25th April, 2014 submitted that she has been instructed to contest the matter. On 26th April, 2014, the petitioners filed an affidavit in which she disowned the undertaking given by her counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had violated the solemn undertaking given to the Court on 15th January, 2013 that they will not interfere with the peaceful possession of the complainant and therefore the anticipatory bail of the petitioners is liable to be cancelled.
Issues: Whether the petitioners had violated the solemn undertaking given to the Court on 15th January, 2013 that they will not interfere with the peaceful possession of the complainant?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners had violated the solemn undertaking given to the Court on 15th January, 2013 that they will not interfere with the peaceful possession of the complainant and therefore the anticipatory bail of the petitioners is liable to be cancelled. The Court also found that the petitioners had time and again made contradictory statements and had repeatedly changed their stand. The Court also found that the petitioners had made false statements on oath before the Court and had misled the Court. The Court further held that the petitioners were not complying with the order dated 9th March, 2010 in FAO No. 91/2010 whereby the complainant is entitled to manage the subject property till disposal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners for violating the undertaking given to the Court not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the complainant in the subject property.
J.R. Midha, J.
Crl. M.A.5018/2013
1. The complainant is seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 15th January, 2013 on the ground that they have violated the undertaking given to this Court on 15th January, 2013.
Factual background
2. The dispute between the parties relate to property bearing No. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which was owned by late Ranjit Singh Jutla who died intestate on 12th July, 2003 at U.K. leaving behind five legal heirs, namely, petitioner No. 1(mother), the complainant(wife), and three sons, namely, Sandeep Jutla, Harpal Jutla and Inderjeet Jutla. Petitioner No. 2 is the daughter of petitioner No. 1.
Probate Case 335/2006
3. On 20th April, 2005, the complainant instituted a petition under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of her husband late Ranjit Singh Jutla in respect of his movable and immovable estate including property No. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”).
4. Petitioner No. 1 contested the said petition on the ground that she was the owner in possession of subject property which was her self-acquired property. Petitioner No. 1 also claimed the right in respect of the money lying in the FDR and savings bank account of the deceased.
5. Both the parties led the evidence in the said petition. The complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that her husband late Ranjit Singh Jutla died intestate on 12th July, 2003. The death certificate was proved as Ex.PW-1/1. She deposed that Late Ranjit Singh Jutla left behind the subject property, a FDR and a savings bank account. The complainant deposed that she was paying house tax of the said property. The house tax receipts for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 were proved as Ex.PW-1/2 and PW-1/3 respectively. Petitioner No. 1 did not cross-examine PW-1 despite opportunity given. The complainant proved the receipt and Will executed by the seller, Rattan Singh in favour of her deceased husband as Ex.PW-2/1 and Ex.PW-3/1 by examining the witnesses from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. The complainant also proved the Will Ex.PW-2/1 of the seller, Rattan Singh in favour of her deceased husband by examining the attesting witness as PW-4.
6. Petitioner No. 1 appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and deposed that she purchased the subject property from the funds of her husband and she was the owner of the subject property. However, she could not produce any document in respect of the subject property in her name and also could not give the date, month and year of the purchase of the property. She also could not produce any other evidence to prove the retiral benefits of her husband and payment of sale consideration to the seller for purchase of the subject property.
7. On 10th July, 2008, petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Order 11 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to serve the interrogatories on the claimant. Interrogatory mentioned in para 3 (iii) is relevant in the present context and is reproduced hereunder:
“3(iii) Who is occupying the property No. 104 Jeevan Park, New Delhi?”
The complainant submitted the reply to the said interrogatory on 16th September, 2008. The reply is as under:
“(iii) Jointly by the petitioner, her sons respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 & the respondent No. 2 as the petitioner some time back when she was in India had put her lock in the premises with one key with her and the other with the respondent No. 2.”
The petitioner did not contest this position.
8. Vide judgment dated 27th October, 2009, the learned District Judge allowed the petition and issued Letters of Administration in respect of the subject property in favour of the complainant. With respect to the FDR and savings bank account, the Letters of Administration were granted in favour of the complainant and petitioner No. 1 in equal shares. The learned District Ju
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
