Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA, NAVIN CHAWLA, JJ.
Late Sh. Harendra Pal Singh The Lrs & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Rishi Pal Singh - Respondent
Rfa(Os) 55, 72 Of 2016 & Cm 24461, 34493 Of 2016
Decided On : 27-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anshu Mahajan, Mr. Karan, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Ms. Risha Mittal, Mr. Bhrigu Dhami, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between vested interest and contingent interest in property rights, and the effect of a Will on the ownership rights.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and their interpretations in the context of a property dispute. The court emphasized the effect of a Will on the ownership rights and the distinction between vested interest and contingent interest in property rights.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute over the ownership of a second floor in a property in New Delhi. The plaintiff sought partition of the entire property, challenging a compromise agreement and a Will that demarcated the property among the family members. The defendants claimed that the compromise agreement was null and void and that the property belonged to them based on a Will executed by the deceased owner's wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise agreement and the Will had different legal implications on the ownership rights. It held that the compromise agreement did not divest the ownership rights in favor of the sons, and the Will had the effect of demarcating and dividing the property among the family members.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity and effect of the compromise agreement and the Will on the ownership rights of the property, as well as the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between vested interest and contingent interest in property rights, and the effect of a Will on the ownership rights. It held that the compromise agreement did not create a vested right in favor of the sons, and the Will had the effect of demarcating and dividing the property among the family members.
Final Decision: The court set aside the preliminary decree and the final decree, and allowed the appeals, stating that the share of the parties cannot be determined until the question of the validity of the Will is decided. The court directed the parties to appear before the single Judge for further proceedings.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. This intra court appeal, RFA(OS) 55/2016 impugns order dated 2nd May, 2016 in CS(OS)1441/2008 and IA 10345/2010 passing a preliminary decree of partition holding that the respondent before us, the plaintiff in the suit, is 1/3rd owner of the second floor and above portion in the property bearing no. T-14, Green Park Extension, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’).
2. The suit property was originally owned by Padam Singh, father of Harendra Pal Singh, Rajendra Pal Singh, and Rishi Pal Singh. Harendra Pal Singh and Rajendra Pal Singh have expired and are now represented by their legal representatives. They are the defendants in the suit and appellants before us.
3. Chandra Kala Devi, wife of Padam Singh, had filed a civil suit CS(OS) 163/1980, impleading the three sons namely Harendra Pal Singh, Rajendra Pal Singh, and Rishi Pal Singh as defendants for declaration and injunction of the entire property i.e. T-14, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. The suit ended in a compromise decree dated 22nd October, 1980. The parties have not been able to trace out and place a copy of the plaint, written statement, compromise application, and the compromise decree dated 22nd October, 1980. It is stated that the suit file has been destroyed and parties do not have a copy of any of the aforesaid documents. However, a copy of execution application filed by Chandra Kala Devi against three sons namely, Harendra Pal Singh, Rajendra Pal Singh, and Rishi Pal Singh is on record. The prayers made in the said execution application read as under:-
“By way of issue of the warrants of attachment of J.Ds goods with a view to compel them to obey the terms of compromise or in any other manner in which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper so that compromise effected between the parties may be implemented. Warrants of attachment of the moveable goods be issued against judgment debtors and further they may also be detained in civil prison so that they may be compelled to obey the decree passed by this Honourable Court.
If this Honourable court deems fit and proper then a Commissioner be appointed at the expanses of the JDs so that share of the decree holder may be divided or separated according to law.
That my other order or order as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper with a view to give effect decree in question may be passed in favour of the Decree Holder so that decree holder may be able to enjoy the fruits of the decree.
The costs of the present application be also allowed against the JDs.”
4. The aforesaid execution application was filed on 17th November, 1981.
5. The execution application resulted in another compromise agreement, relevant clauses of which reads as under:-
“(i) That rear portion shown in red colour shall be owned by Rishi Pal Singh exclusively i.e. ground floor with land beneath, first floor upto the level of ceiling, as no other party shall have any right title interest in the same in any manner.
(ii) That newly constructed first floor as has been shown in blue colour in the annexed site plan shall be exclusively owned by Rajendra pal Singh as sole owner/landlord, no other party to present proceedings shall have any claim, right, title over the same in any manner.
(iii) That J.D. No.1 Shri H.P.Singh shall have all the ownership rights in respect of front Ground floor portion of the house No.T-14, Green Park Extension, New Delhi which has been shown in green colour in the annexed plan.
(iv) That barsati floor as has been shown in brown colour shall be owned by Decree Holder and her husband as sole owner/landlord till they are alive and thereafter it shall be devolved upon all the sons equally.
(v) That the common portion as has been shown in blank in the site plan shall be maintained by the parties in a joint way for common us.
(vi) That site plan shall be read as part and parcel of this deed.
(vii) That parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this compromise.
(viii) That none of par
