Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Priti Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
Rani Prem Kumari (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. - Respondents
RFA No. 555 of 2018
Decided On : 30-08-2018
PARTITION SUIT - WILL - TRUST - REGISTRATION - VESTING OF PROPERTY - CIVIL DEATH - SANYASI - VALIDITY OF WILL - JURISDICTION - BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT - RAJASTHAN PUBLIC TRUST ACT - SUCCESSION - INTESTACY - LEGITIMATE HEIRS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Raja Pratap Singh, the father of the appellant/plaintiff, had two other daughters, who were sued as defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit, namely Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria and Smt. Raj Laxmi Shah. The widow of Sh. Raja Pratap Singh was sued as the defendant no. 1 in the suit. Appellant/Plaintiff pleads that the registered Will dated 16.11.1992 relied upon by the respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 1 to 3 being the widow and other daughters of late Raja Pratap Singh is not a valid or genuine Will, and consequently since late Raja Pratap Singh died intestate therefore all the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh have been inherited by his four legal heirs, namely three daughters and the widow, each of whom have 1/4th share in the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh. The appellant/plaintiff has also pleaded that late Raja Pratap Singh had become a Sanyasi in the Dusshera of October 1993, and ultimately late Raja Pratap Singh had taken a Jal Samadhi, i.e he expired, on 24.12.1993. Therefore, the alternative case to seek intestacy of late Raja Pratap Singh by the appellant/plaintiff was that since Raja Pratap Singh had become a Sanyasi, therefore any Will made by late Raja Pratap Singh including the registered Will dated 16.11.1992, was of no force and effect.
Finding of the Court:
The Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties stood vested in the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust inasmuch as the Trust Deed has been proved and exhibited as Ex. DW1/1 and the Settlement Deed/Pranyas Patra has been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/D2. Once the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties were vested in the Trust, the same could not have been subject matter of any Will executed by late Raja Pratap Singh including the Will dated 16.11.1992, and also even if Raja Pratap Singh died intestate, the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties would not be available to the legal heirs for being partitioned because the ownership of Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties stood vested with Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust much prior to the actual death of Raja Pratap singh on 24.12.1993.
Issues: 1. Whether the deceased Raja Pratap Singh was competent to dispose off the properties by executing a Will? 2. Whether the registered Will dated 16.11.1992 and the holographic Will dated 06.11.1992 have been validly executed by deceased Raja Pratap Singh? 3. Whether probate is not essential in respect of the Will and holographic Will? 4. Whether the deceased Raja Pratap Singh left behind any properties other than those mentioned in the Will? If so, to what effect? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition in respect of estates detailed in Annexure A to the plaint? 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant no. 5? 6(a) Whether the Kuchaman Fort and Palace have vested in defendant no. 5? 6(b) Whether a suit for partition on the basis of succession can be filed for the property which is the subject matter of a registered Will without challenging the Will?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A transfer of an immovable property is by a registered document as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. 2. Since the Pranyas Patra is a document which is duly registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar at Nagaur, Rajasthan, therefore, by means of the Pranyas Patra the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties became vested in Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust. 3. Once the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties were vested in the Trust, the same could not have been subject matter of any Will executed by late Raja Pratap Singh including the Will dated 16.11.1992, and also even if Raja Pratap Singh died intestate, the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties would not be available to the legal heirs for being partitioned because the ownership of Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties stood vested with Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust much prior to the actual death of Raja Pratap singh on 24.12.1993. 4. There is no provision in the Bombay Public Trusts Act which states that if the details of the trust properties are not forwarded/given to the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, then a transfer of a property to a trust is void and of no effect.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.2 lacs, and these costs shall be paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 1 to 3 and the respondent no.5/defendant no.5/Trust in the ratio of 50% each, within a period of six weeks from today.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
RFA No. 555/2018 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 28238-43/2018
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 12.3.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for partition and injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to properties of her father Raja Pratap Singh. It may be noted that the impugned Judgment dated 12.3.2018 is a common judgment disposing of two suits. One suit is the subject suit for partition filed by the appellant/plaintiff, and the second suit was the suit for possession filed by the sister of the appellant/plaintiff, one Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria with respect to barsati floor/second floor of the property bearing no. 113, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, and which suit filed by Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria was decreed in terms of the impugned judgment for possession and mesne profits, the RFA filed by the present appellant/plaintiff against the impugned Judgment dated 12.3.2018 to the extent of decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria, the same stands compromised in terms of the consent/compromise order recorded today separately in RFA No. 554/2018. The present appeal is therefore concerned with the properties of Raja Pratap Singh, other than the property at 113, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, and which disputed properties are stated in Annexure-A to the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
2. The facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff pleaded that she is the daughter of late Raja Pratap Singh who was the Jagirdar of Kuchaman in Rajasthan. Besides the appellant/plaintiff, late Raja Pratap Singh had two other daughters, and who were sued as defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit, namely Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria and Smt. Raj Laxmi Shah. The widow of Sh. Raja Pratap Singh was sued as the defendant no. 1 in the suit. Appellant/Plaintiff pleads that the registered Will dated 16.11.1992 relied upon by the respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 1 to 3 being the widow and other daughters of late Raja Pratap Singh is not a valid or genuine Will, and consequently since late Raja Pratap Singh died intestate therefore all the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh have been inherited by his four legal heirs, namely three daughters and the widow, each of whom have 1/4th share in the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh. The appellant/plaintiff has also pleaded that late Raja Pratap Singh had become a Sanyasi in the Dusshera of October 1993, and ultimately late Raja Pratap Singh had taken a Jal Samadhi, i.e he expired, on 24.12.1993. Therefore, the alternative case to seek intestacy of late Raja Pratap Singh by the appellant/plaintiff was that since Raja Pratap Singh had become a Sanyasi, therefore any Will made by late Raja Pratap Singh including the registered Will dated 16.11.1992, was of no force and effect. Partition was accordingly claimed with respect to the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh, to the extent of 1/4th share of the appellant/plaintiff, and which properties were stated in Annexure-A to the plaint.
3. Besides respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit, and who were the widow and two other daughters of late Raja Pratap Singh, defendant no.4 in the suit was the son-in-law of late Raja Pratap Singh being the husband of respondent no.3/defendant no.3, a proforma defendant in the suit, as no reliefs were claimed against respondent no.4/defendant no.
4. Originally, there was no defendant no.5 in the suit. The defendant no.5 namely Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Trust was pendente lite added as defendant no.5 in the suit through its trustees as defendants no. 5(a) to 5(e). Respondent no. 5/Defendant no. 5/Trust was added as defendant no.5 to the suit during the pendency of the suit because the appellant/plaintiff claimed that the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal were the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh at the
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
