Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
MANJIT CHAWLA & ANR - PLAINTIFFS
Versus
SAPNA ALIAS VASUNDHRA & ORS. - DEFENDANTS
CS(OS) 767 of 2011
Decided On : 03-01-2018
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Mr. Siddharth Borah
The main legal point established is the requirement for parties to provide sufficient evidence to prove oral arrangements or relinquishments in property disputes, and the court's reliance on the lack of evidence to reject the Defendants' claims.
Headnote:
Partition - Family Settlement - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 101 - Suit properties are held to be joint properties in which Plaintiffs jointly have 1/3rd Share, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly have 1/3rd share and Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 jointly have 1/3rd share - Preliminary decree of partition passed.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a partition claim by the Plaintiffs for properties owned by late Smt. Krishan Kaur. The Defendants claimed an oral family arrangement/settlement partitioning the properties amongst them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Defendants failed to prove the alleged oral partition and oral relinquishment deed, and held that the suit properties were joint properties in which the parties had equal shares.
Issues: The main issues included the entitlement of the Plaintiffs to a decree for partition, the existence of an oral partition, and the relinquishment of shares by Smt. Balwant Kaur in favor of the Defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court placed the onus on the Defendants to prove the oral partition and relinquishment, and emphasized the lack of evidence to support their claims. It also highlighted the legal principle that oral relinquishment of share in an immovable property is not permitted.
Final Decision: A preliminary decree of partition was passed, declaring that the parties jointly held 1/3rd share each in the suit properties, and the Plaintiffs were held entitled to costs of the suit against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. This is a Suit for partition by the Plaintiffs seeking a decree of partition of the following Suit properties:-
(i) 10A, Curzon Road, Dehradun,
(ii) Flat No.31, Jungpura Ext. Market, New Delhi
(iii) Flat No.17, Krishna Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
2. The Plaintiffs claim one-third share in the property. It is contended that the properties were owned by late Smt. Krishan Kaur, grandmother of the Plaintiffs, who died intestate on 21.07.1990. On her death, she was survived by her husband (Sardar Kripal Singh Duggal), one son (Sardar Pushpinder Singh), one daughter (Smt. Balwant Kaur) and legal heirs of pre deceased second daughter (Smt. Balbir Kaur).
3. Sardar Kripal Singh Duggal expired on 18.04.2012 (during the pendency of the Suit). Prior to the filing of the Suit, Smt. Balwant Kaur (daughter), expired on 10.07.2005 (legal heirs of Smt. Balwant Kaur are the Plaintiffs; Sardar Pushpinder Singh (son), expired on 02.01.2006 (legal representatives of Sardar Pushpinder Singh are arrayed as Defendant Nos. 1 & 2) and Smt. Balbir Kaur (daughter), who predeceased Smt. Krishan Kaur on 25.12.1978, her legal representatives are arrayed as Defendant Nos. 3 to 5.
4. It is contended that the properties were the self-acquired properties of Late Smt. Krishan Kaur and on the demise of Smt. Krishan Kaur on 21.07.1990, intestate, all the properties have devolved upon her legal heirs in the following proportion:-
Balwant Kaur - 1/3rd share
Pushpinder Singh – 1/3rd share
Heirs of Balbir Kaur – 1/3rd share
5. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (legal heirs of Sardar Pushpinder Singh) in their written statement admit that Smt. Krishan Kaur was the owner of the Suit properties and that she died intestate. However, it is contended that after the death of Smt. Krishan Kaur, her husband Sardar Kripal Singh Duggal, her son Sardar Pushpinder Singh Duggal and surviving daughter Smt. Balwant Kaur entered into an oral family arrangement/settlement in the year 1996, wherein they partitioned the Suit properties amongst them. Property 10-A Curzon Road, Dehradun fell to the share of Sardar Kripal Singh Duggal, Flat No. 31, Jangpura Extension fell to the share of S. Pushpinder Singh Duggal and Flat No. 17, Krishan Market, Lajpat Nagar, fell into the share of Smt. Balwant Kaur. After the demise of Sardar Kripal Singh Duggal, Smt. Balwant Kaur orally relinquished her share in property bearing No. 10-A, Curzon Road, Dehradun in favour of Sardar Pushpinder Singh Duggal.
6. Defendant No 3 to 5 have supported the case of the Plaintiff and concede to a decree being passed.
7. On the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition of the Suit property in terms of prayer(i) of the plaint? OPP.
(ii) Whether the properties in question were orally partitioned as alleged by Defendant No.1 and 2? OPD1 & 2.
(iii) Did Smt. Balwant Kaur relinquish her share in favour of the father of Defendants? If so, its effect? OPD1 & 2.
(iv) Whether Defendant Nos.1 & 2 became sole owner of property bearing No. 10-A, Curzon Road, Dehradun and Flat No.31, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi? OPD1 & 2.
(v) Relief.
8. Plaintiffs, in support of their claim, produced Ms. Manjit Chawla, Plaintiff No. 1 as PW – 1, Dr. Harjit Singh Kochhar, Plaintiff No. 2 appeared as PW – 2. Plaintiffs also produced Mr. Surya Prakash, LDC/Record Keeper from the office of Sub-Registrar-I, Mr. Narinder Sehrawat, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Hazarat Nizzamuddin, Shri Prakash Singh, Constable, Kothwali, Haldwani, Shri Rajinder Singh Hayangi.
9. The Defendants, in support of their claim, produced Smt. Rachna as DW – 1, who is Defendant No. 2; Shri Dalip Singh, husband of Defendant No. 2 as DW – 2.
10. It may be noticed that Mr. Dalip Singh, who was produced as DW – 2, was subsequently not produced for cross-examination. On 24.07.2017, statement of counsel for the Defendants was recorded that he did not wish to produce the said witness and closed his evi
