Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 1006

2024 DHC 10044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Shri Birbal Saini S/O Sh.Bharat Saini - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Satywati, D/O Sh.Bharat Singh - Respondent
RSA 196 of 2019 & CM APPL. 42921 of 2019
Decided On : 24-12-2024
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Ms. Barnali Paul, Ms. Hardikaa Kalia and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advs.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Adv.

Advocates:
Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Ms. Barnali Paul, Ms. Hardikaa Kalia and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. for Appellant; Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Adv. for Respondent

The court affirmed that the suit property was separate property inherited by the father, not ancestral, allowing its legal sale to the respondent.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Nature of property - The suit property was determined to be separate property inherited by the father, not ancestral property, thus legally sold to the respondent/plaintiff by the father. (Paras 22-24, 61-66)

(B) Ancestral Property - Definition and characteristics - Ancestral property is coparcenary property, while inherited property is owned exclusively by the inheritor, who can dispose of it freely. (Paras 15-18)

Facts of the case:
The case involves a dispute between siblings over the ownership of a property sold by their father to the respondent/plaintiff, who claimed rightful possession after being dispossessed by the appellant/defendant.

Findings of Court:
The courts below correctly identified the suit property as separate property, validating the sale deed executed by the father in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the suit property was ancestral or separate property, affecting the legality of the sale.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the property was not ancestral as it was inherited through a family settlement, allowing the father to sell it legally.

Result: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.

The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2019 in RCA No. 60818/16, passed by the Court of ADJ- 1, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby, judgment and decree dated 06.06.2015 in suit No. 333/2009, passed by the Trial Court, decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, mandatory and permanent injunction and recovery of damages/mesne profits, has been affirmed.

2. The case concerns the respondent/plaintiff and appellant/defendant, who are real brothers and sisters. The respondent/plaintiff is a widow and resides with her father and son at House No. 581, near Saini Chaupal village, Mundka, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the suit property ). Sh. Bharat Singh (father) had allocated 161 sq. yds. plots to each of his four sons, including the appellant/defendant, where they constructed their houses and lived with their families. The suit property had devolved on Sh. Surjan Singh, grandfather of the contesting parties based on a family settlement that took place between him and his brother. Therefore, the same became a separate property owned by him which later, on his death, was inherited by the father of the contesting parties namely, Sh. Bharat Singh.

3. Due to being neglected by his sons, the father, Sh. Bharat Singh moved into the suit property with the respondent/plaintiff and her son and it is, thereafter, that he sold the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff through a GPA, Agreement-to-Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Letter of Possession, and Will dated 03.04.2009.

4. The respondent/plaintiff alleged that the appellant/defendant is an alcoholic who created disturbances and threatened to commit suicide. Numerous police complaints were lodged against him. The respondent/plaintiff also received threats from the appellant/defendant’s brother, Sh. Subhash, and his wife, Smt. Yashoda Devi. The respondent/plaintiff asserted that after distributing plots to his sons, the father retained the suit property for himself, which he later sold to the respondent/plaintiff. In the plaint, certain averments regarding the fabrication of documents in the father's name and the filing of frivolous lawsuits against the respondent/plaintiff were also made. The respondent/plaintiff drew attention to a particular event that occurred on 26.02.2009, wherein, the appellant/defendant unlawfully placed his locks on two inter-connected rooms on the first floor and dumped his rusty belongings there, forcibly removing the respondent/plaintiff's possessions during the night.The respondent/plaintiff requested the appellant/defendant to remove his articles and restore the possession of rooms to her, but he refused, despite her being the rightful owner of the suit property.

5. Thereby, being dispossessed, the plaintiff preferred the suit for recovery of possession.

6. The appellant/defendant refutes the respondent ’s /plaintiff's claim in the written statement filed by him, asserting that she was never in possession of the suit property. It was submitted that in the guise of mandatory injunction, the respondent/plaintiff cannot covertly seek possession when no specific prayer for possession has been made. The appellant/defendant contended that the suit was itself invalid on procedural grounds, inasmuch as, the notice for damages remained unserved and the other co-owner brothers were also not arrayed as necessary parties. Additionally, the appellant/defendant emphasized the property's ancestral nature, asserting that the married respondent/plaintiff received no share in the property. Finally, they challenge the legal right of the father, Sh. Bharat Singh's to sell the property to the respondent/plaintiff, asserting a complex interplay of family dynamics and inheritance law.

7. The Court of First Instance, in view of the submissions made before it, and on examining the evidence adduced on record,vide order dated 20.10.2012, framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to t