Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REKHA PALLI, J.
Sanjiv K. Singh and Others - Appellants
Versus
Ritu Singh and Another - Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 390 of 2012, 490 of 2017; Civil Miscellaneous No. 11623 of 2014, 17026 of 2018
Decided On : 27-09-2019
N.S. Vasisht, Adv., Vishal Singh, Adv., Jyoti Kataria Bajaj, Adv., Sandeep Mittal, Adv., Varun Kumar, Adv., Arjit Benjamin, Adv., Avshreya P.S. Rudy, Adv.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure - Partition Suit - Hindu Succession Act - [PROPERTY, PARTITION, HUF, FAMILY SETTLEMENT] - [Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, 1987 AIR SC 588, CIT v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567, Sunil Kumar vs. Ram Prakash, (1988) 2 SCC 77, Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad & Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 646, Allah-diya & Anr. v. Mt. Sona Devi, AIR (29) 1942 Al 331] - The court held that the suit property was not HUF property and was the individually owned, self-acquired property of Sardar Kavaljit Singh. The property was sold by Sardar Kavaljit Singh prior to the birth of the appellant no.1, and the proceeds thereof became his separate property. The court found that the suit property was inherited in equal shares by all the legal heirs of Sardar Kavaljit Singh in accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court also held that the family settlement dated 02.08.1993 was null, void, and unenforceable due to misrepresentation and fraud by the appellant no.1.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a partition suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, related to a property left by late Sardar Kavaljit Singh. The suit property was claimed by the legal heirs, and the main issue was whether the property was HUF property or the self-acquired property of Sardar Kavaljit Singh. The court also considered the validity and enforceability of a family settlement dated 02.08.1993.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property was not HUF property and was the individually owned, self-acquired property of Sardar Kavaljit Singh. The property was inherited in equal shares by all the legal heirs in accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court also held that the family settlement dated 02.08.1993 was null, void, and unenforceable due to misrepresentation and fraud by the appellant no.1.
Issues: The main issues were whether the property was HUF property or the self-acquired property of Sardar Kavaljit Singh, and the validity and enforceability of the family settlement dated 02.08.1993.
Ratio Decidendi: The property was found to be the individually owned, self-acquired property of Sardar Kavaljit Singh, and the court applied Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act to determine the inheritance. The family settlement was held to be null, void, and unenforceable due to misrepresentation and fraud by the appellant no.1.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed as meritless, and the court upheld the findings of the trial court regarding the nature of the property and the family settlement.
JUDGMENT :
Rekha Palli, J.
This decision disposes of two connected appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the defendants in Suit No.378/2003, the first assailing the preliminary decree dated 26.05.2012 and the second assailing the final decree dated 01.03.2017, both passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Once again, an unsavoury litigation has erupted amongst the kin of a departed soul. The parties are in litigation to take their parcel of share in the suit property which they have earned by way of bounty through inheritance. The lis pertains to the property situated at 104, Malcha Marg, New Delhi left by late Sardar Kavaljit Singh who died intestate on 03.10.1971.
3. Under the preliminary decree impugned in RFA No. 390/2012, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit for partition, declaration and rendition of accounts instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs, by holding that the suit property was a self-acquired property owned by their father late Sardar Kavaljit Singh and had, therefore, devolved in equal shares upon his five legal heirs when he died. The final decree in terms of the preliminary decree was subsequently passed by the trial Court on 01.03.2017 and the same is under challenge in RFA No. 490/2017.
4. Two daughters of late Sardar Kavaljit Singh, who succeeded before the trial Court, are the respondents in the present appeals while his third daughter and only son are the two appellants. The widow of late Sardar Kavalajit Singh, who was arrayed as appellant no. 3 in RFA No. 390/2012 has since expired. The appellant no.1, her son has succeeded her by way of a registered Will dated 13.12.2005 executed in his favour by her, which position is admitted by the respondents as well.
5. The brief facts of the case are that late Sardar Jaidev Singh, father of Sardar Kavaljit Singh and the grandfather of the parties, was allotted 10474 sq. yards of land in Mahaldar Khan Garden situated at Sadhura Kalan, New Delhi on 18.08.1944. After his intestate death, his widow Sardarni Channan Kaur and his four sons including Sardar Kavaljit Singh, became the joint owners of the said plot of land. The said plot of ancestral land at Mahaldar Khan Garden was sold to Delhi Land and Finance Ltd. (DLF) on 11.08.1950, the proceeds of which were divided equally amongst the legal heirs of Sardar Jaidev Singh.
6. After receiving his share of proceeds from the sale of the joint family property, Sardar Kavaljit Singh purchased a plot bearing number 104, Malcha Marg (formerly bearing no 140/48, Diplomatic Enclave) New Delhi on 27.02.1952 which came to be allotted in his favour by the Land and Development Office (L&DO). He subsequently raised construction thereon and the same forms the suit property. Following this allotment, a perpetual lease of the suit land was also executed in favour of Sardar Kavaljit Singh by the L&DO on 04.04.1963.
7. As noted above, Sardar Kavaljit Singh died intestate on 03.10.1971 leaving behind his widow, his son, i.e. the appellant no.1 born on 26.01.1956 and his three daughters. For the sake of convenience, the family tree depicting the relationship of all the parties is reproduced hereinbelow:-
| Family Tree | ||||
| Late Sardar Kavaljit Singh (expired on 03.10.1971) | ||||
| Surjit K. Singh/ Appellant No.3 (wife)
(now deceased and represented through Appellant No.1 | Rashmi Jolly/ Respondent No.1 (married daughter) | Ritu K. Singh/ Respondent No.2 (unmarried daughter) | Sanjiv K. Singh/ Appellant No.1 (married son) | Natasha Robinson/ Appellant No.2 (married daughter) |
8. After his demise, the suit property continued to remain in the name of Sardar Kavaljit Singh and was being rented out to various tenants from time to time; the rent whereof was being collected by the appellant no.1. While the suit property h
