Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
BIRBAL SAINI – Appellant
Versus
SATYAWATI – Respondent
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 c
The court affirmed that the suit property was separate property inherited by the father, not ancestral, allowing its legal sale to the respondent.
(1) Coparcenary property vis-à-vis ancestral property – By definition, ancestral property is a coparcenary property where “coparceners” are legal heirs with inherent interest in property from birth –....
A claimant must prove the ancestral nature of properties to claim entitlement under the amended Hindu Succession Act; mere assertions without evidence are insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in establishing the nature of the suit property and the entitlement to seek relief by way of partition, as well as the i....
The court ruled that property is non-ancestral when not inherited from a common male ancestor, upholding legal validity of voluntary sales for consideration made by owner.
The court emphasized that ancestral property remains joint family property unless legally disposed of, and the birth of a son creates coparcenary rights.
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
