Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
KAUSHALYA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
RAM MEHAR RAJPUT & ORS. - Respondents
RSA 2 of 2016
Decided on : 13-02-2017
For the Appellant :Ms.Vandana Sharma & Mr.Abhay S.Kushwaha, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr.Lokeshwar Sharma & Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of family arrangements and the equitable distribution of property among family members, as well as the validity of compromise deeds in settling property disputes.
Headnote:
WILL - Property Dispute - Land Records Act - Hindu Succession Act - [Section 48 of Land Records Act, Hindu Succession Act] - The court discussed the validity of the Will executed by the deceased in favor of the appellant/plaintiff, the settlement through a compromise deed, and the legal rights of the appellant/plaintiff in the ancestral property. The court emphasized the importance of family arrangements and the equitable distribution of property among family members.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a widow, claimed ownership of a portion of ancestral land bequeathed to her by her father-in-law through a Will. The respondents, her sons and brothers-in-law, contested her claim, citing a compromise deed and the inheritance of her late husband's share.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased did not have the right to bequeath the ancestral property, and the appellant's claim based on the Will failed. The court also upheld the validity of the compromise deed, which provided the appellant with financial assistance and a share in the disputed land.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the Will, the rights of the appellant in the ancestral property, and the impact of the compromise deed on the appellant's claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of family arrangements and equitable distribution of property among family members. It upheld the validity of the compromise deed and rejected the appellant's claim based on the Will.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the findings of the lower courts, ruling against the appellant's claim.
RSA 2/2016
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed by the appellant/plaintiff impugning the concurrent judgment of the Courts below i.e. of the learned Trial Court dated 13th September, 2013 and of the First Appellate Court dated 29th November, 2014 by which prayers of the appellant/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 0-17 biswas of land forming part of agricultural land/killa No.116 and 117 Khatauni No.13/13 and 105/95 total land measuring 7 bigha 0-17 biswas situated in Revenue Estate of Village Ghoga, Delhi, have been declined.
2. Ms.Vandana Sharma, Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant, who is a widow lady, has to lookafter her three daughters. She had also taken care of her father-in-law late Sh.Dhan Singh till his death. As the financial condition of the appellant/plaintiff is not good and in view of responsibilities on her of her daughters, late Sh.Dhan Singh - her father-in-law bequeathed 0-17 biswas of land falling in his share in her favour by way of will Ex.PW1/F. He was competent to execute the Will in view of the provisions of Section 48 of Land Records Act as well under Hindu Succession Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that substantial share of the property owned by late Sh.Dhan Singh had already been bequeathed to his sons and grandsons by virtue of Will dated 16th November, 1994 Ex.PW1/E. None of the other legal heirs had any share in the 0-17 biswas of land owned by late Sh.Dhan Singh. Since the respondents have already taken over the property bequeathed to them by late Sh.Dhan Singh, they cannot claim any right in the property bequeathed to the appellant/plaintiff in recognition of her share in the ancestral property as the share of her husband late Sh.Sat Narayan. The appellant had a valid title in the property given to her by father-in-law by virtue of Will dated 13th January, 2003 Ex.PW1/F. Hence, the judgments passed by both the Courts below being suffering from perversity may be set aside.
3. Mr.Lokeshwar Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has contended that by virtue of Will Ex.PW1/E dated 16th November, 1994 the share of husband of appellant/plaintiff has already been inherited by her two sons namely Rakesh and Deepak (respondents No.3 and 4 herein), who were impleaded as defendants No.3 and 4 in the civil suit and preferred not to contest the same. It has been further contended that despite the fact that the share of her husband in ancestral property has been inherited by her two sons, still with a view to settle her claim in 0-17 biswas of land, a compromise deed dated 19th November, 2004 Ex.DW1/2 was executed in the presence of witnesses. In terms of the said compromise, the appellant/plaintiff had been given ?2 lacs in cash and also 1/3rd share in 0-17 biswas of land. In terms of the said compromise, it was agreed that this 0-17 biswas of land shall be mutated in the name of all the three i.e. the appellant, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. They have also applied for mutation in respect of the said land but thereafter she had become greedy and filed this case though all her claims have already been settled and share of her husband vested in her sons.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law was formulated on 30th January, 2017:-
“Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court are contrary to the evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff before learned trial Court and suffer from perversity?”
5. The facts as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff in Civil Suit No.719/08 are that:-
(i) Respondents No.1 and 2 (defendants No.1 and 2 in Civil Suit No.719/08) are brothers of her husband late Sh.Sat Narayan and respondents No.3 and 4 (defendants No.3 and 4 in Civil Suit No.719/08) are her sons.
(ii) Her father-in-law Sh.Dhan Singh owned property measuring 300 sq. yds. situated in Revenue Estate of Village Ghoga, Delhi and the half share in
