Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
SMT. PARAMJIT KAUR & OTHERS – Appellants
Versus
SH. TEJA SINGH & OTHERS – Respondents
R.S.A. Nos. 143 & 144 of 2013
Decided On : 01-09-2016
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kohli and Ms. Bhumika Kapur.
For the Respondents: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Ms. Sonam Anand and Mr. V.K. Sharma.
The validity and enforceability of a restrictive clause in a Will, as per the Indian Succession Act, and the implications of a Relinquishment Deed in property disputes.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 84, 85, 87, 88, 114, 122, 138 - The court held that the restrictive clause in the Will, disallowing the sale of the property for 10 years after the death of the testator, was valid and enforceable. The judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, and the judgment of the trial court was restored, declaring the Relinquishment Deed as illegal and void. The appellants were entitled to vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over a Relinquishment Deed dated 29.6.1973, which the appellants claimed to be illegal due to the mental state of the testator. The first appellate court dismissed the suit, but the second appeal challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will's restrictive clause was valid and enforceable, and the Relinquishment Deed was illegal and void. The judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, and the judgment of the trial court was restored, granting the appellants vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the Will, the legality of the Relinquishment Deed, and the non-joinder of a living plaintiff. The court addressed the proof of the Will's execution, the interpretation of its clauses, and the implications of the Relinquishment Deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the restrictive clause in the Will was valid and enforceable, based on the Indian Succession Act, and that the Relinquishment Deed was illegal and void. The court also ruled that the suit was not defective due to the non-joinder of a living plaintiff.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the first appellate court was set aside. The judgment of the trial court was restored, granting the appellants vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
RSA No. 143/2013
1. Counsels for the parties state that this appeal be disposed of as compromised and appeal would not be pressed on merits inasmuch as, the respondent no. 8/Sh. Kimti Lal has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs to the appellants in full and final satisfaction of any claim which the appellants may have in the suit property bearing no. 20/51, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Accordingly, respondent no. 8/Sh. Kimti Lal will pay a sum of Rs.4 lacs to the appellants within a period of eight weeks from today, and on receipt of which amount the rights of the appellants in the property bearing no. 20/51, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, as claimed by the appellants would stand satisfied. It is also agreed that in case the amount of Rs.4 lacs as agreed above is not paid by the respondent no. 8 to the appellants within a period of eight weeks then respondent no. 8 will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum simple on this amount of Rs.4 lacs w.e.f 1.1.2013 till the same is paid to the appellants. It is agreed that the aforesaid amount which is to be paid by the respondent no. 8 to the appellants will remain a charge on the suit property bearing no. 20/51, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi till the amount is paid. It is also agreed that the amount which is to be paid to the appellants will be paid by means of a pay order or a bank draft drawn in favour of the appellant no. 1 and can be delivered either directly to the appellant no. 1 or to the appellant no. 1 through the counsel for the appellants who is appearing in court today.
2. This second appeal is accordingly disposed of as compromised in the aforesaid terms.
RSA No. 144/2013
1(i) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 26.2.2013 by which the first appellate court allowed the regular first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC by the respondent nos. 1 to 7 herein and who were the legal representatives of original defendant no. 1 Smt. Maan Kaur. Trial court by its Judgment dated 16.7.2003 had decreed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs declaring that the Relinquishment Deed dated 29.6.1973 executed by the husband of appellant no. 1/Sh. Gurcharan Singh (and the father of the other appellants/plaintiffs) with respect to Shop No. 20/45, Old Market, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi is cancelled and that appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property bearing Shop No. 20/45, Old Market, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Trial court decreed the suit by the following operative portion of its judgment:-
“38. RELIEF:- In the light of my findings, on the issue No. 1 to 11 above, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed against the deft to the effect that plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration to the effect that documents namely relinquishment deed dated 29.6.73 with respect to shop no. 45/20 old Market, West Patel Nagar and sale deed dated 2.1.74 with respect to flat no. 51/20 Old Market, West Patel Nagar, are cancelled and Gurcharan Singh is declared as original owner of the shop no. 45/20 as well as flat no. 51/20 situated at Old Market, West Patel Nagar, plaintiffs are also entitled for the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property comprising of shop no. 45/20 and flat no. 51/20 as shown in the red colour in the site plan from the deft. No orders as to the cost. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to RR.”
(ii) I may clarify at this stage that by the suit declaration and reliefs were sought with respect to two properties, one being the property which is the subject matter of the present decision in RSA No. 144/2013 being property no. 20/45, and the other property with respect to which reliefs were sought was property no. 20/51, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and with respect to which latter property no. 20/51, t
