Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
I.R. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. And Another - Appellant
Versus
Yashpal Khullar And Others - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 267 of 2017
Decided On : 29-07-2024
WILL - PROPERTY DISPUTE - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 3, 5; Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 2(h); Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 2(n), 25(1), 26, 111 - The court analyzed the validity of two Wills concerning property ownership and the implications of allotment letters. It emphasized that a Will does not transfer property during the testator's lifetime and that ownership must be established through valid legal instruments. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were invalid due to the cancellation of the original allotment and the lack of a fresh allotment in his favor.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a residential plot based on a registered Will and agreement for sale executed by the original allottee, SLM, who died in 1996. The defendants contested this claim, asserting that a subsequent unregistered Will favored one of them, and that the allotment to SLM had been canceled by NOIDA before the suit was filed.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, doubting the validity of the Will dated 24.11.1995 and favoring the unregistered Will dated 10.01.1996. The appellate court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the higher court found that the plaintiff's claims were unsupported by valid legal rights due to the cancellation of the allotment and lack of evidence for ownership.
Issues: 1. Whether the Will dated 10.01.1996 superseded the earlier Will dated 24.11.1995? 2. Whether the plaintiff could prove ownership based on the Will? 3. Whether the allotment letter created transferable rights? 4. The implications of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act on membership and rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a Will does not transfer property during the testator's lifetime and that the plaintiff's rights were contingent on valid allotment and membership, which were not established. The cancellation of the allotment by NOIDA and the lack of a fresh allotment in favor of the plaintiff rendered his claims void.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the lower appellate court was set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the original suit.
JUDGMENT :
(Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.) :
1. The instant second appeal has been filed by two defendants of the Original Suit No.482 of 2002 assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2017 whereby learned Additional District Judge, First, Gautam Budh Nagar, has allowed Civil Appeal No.19 of 2013 filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1, set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 23.03.2013 and decreed the suit granting various reliefs to the plaintiff-respondent no.1.
PLAINT CASE
2. As per plaint case, a residential plot No.122, Block-E, Measuring 180 sq. mtrs situated at Sector 41, Noida had been allotted by defendant no.4, i.e. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (for short ‘NOIDA’) in favour of one Shadi Lal Mehra (for short ‘SLM’) who executed a registered agreement for sale dated 24.11.1995 in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, SLM had delivered possession of plot to him. The plaintiff also pleaded about a registered Will dated 24.11.1995 and certain other documents, like power of attorney etc, executed by SLM in his favour. SLM died on 11.02.1996, consequent upon which, the plaintiff became owner of the plot to the divestment of defendants no.2 and 3, who are respectively widow and son of SLM. The plaintiff could not inform NOIDA about the rights acquired by him at the strength of the Will and other documents but, on 12.12.2002, when he found the defendant no.1 (I.R. Constructions Pvt Ltd) (appellant no.1 herein) raising constructions over the plot, on being asked from the appellant no.1, he was informed about execution of certain documents by the defendants no.2 and 3 in favour of defendant no.5-Devendra Kumar (appellant no.2 herein) and also a registered lease deed dated 28.05.2001 for 90 years by NOIDA. The plaintiff stated all the documents executed inter se defendants as null and void by relying upon the agreement for sale and Will dated 24.11.1995 in his favour by SLM and, consequently, prayed for a decree for specific performance of the agreement directing the defendants no.2, 3 and 5 to execute sale deed in his favour, grant of which if not possible, a decree restraining the defendant no.1 from raising constructions and demolition of constructions raised so far; declaring all documents executed amongst the defendants as null and void; declaring the plaintiff as owner of the disputed plot at the strength of the Will dated 24.11.1995 with a further decree that possession of the plot be directed to be delivered to the plaintiff.
CONTEST BY DEFENDANTS
3. The defendants no.1 and 5 (appellants herein) pleaded in written statement that a Will dated 10.01.1996 was executed by SLM in favour of defendant no.5; the said defendant applied before NOIDA for entering his name in the records and for getting a lease deed executed; NOIDA executed a registered lease deed on 28.05.2001 in favour of defendant no.5 and also delivered its possession to him, whereafter the defendant no.5 executed documents in favour of defendant no.1 and also handed over its possession to the said defendant. It was further pleaded that the defendant no.1 raised constructions over the plot and had also obtained a completion certificate from NOIDA prior to institution of the suit. They disputed the sustainability of the Will dated 24.11.1995 by referring to proceedings of a probate case filed by the plaintiff which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 30.08.2003 by the District Judge, Ghaziabad. Certain other documents executed amongst the defendants were also pleaded with a further stand that the suit was filed at a very belated stage after the title stood vested in the defendants. Wife of late SLM and his son were defendants no.2 and 3 against whom suit had proceeded ex-parte, as would be apparent from the appellate court’s judgment and the main contest was made by the present appellants, who were respectively, defendants no.1 and 5 in the suit.
TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT
4. The trial court framed nine issues and the main
A Will does not constitute a transfer of property during the testator's lifetime, and ownership must be established through valid legal instruments, including proper allotments and memberships.
The absence of a registered conveyance deed precludes the Society from claiming any rights to the plot, and principles of res judicata apply to prevent re-litigation of the same issues.
Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Court is vested jurisdiction to adjudicate all suits of civil nature. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court to adjudicate suit of civil nature is an exc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned notices issued by the Society were valid, as the petitioner failed to fulfill the obligation to undertake construction within the....
The court reaffirmed that personal laws govern inheritance claims despite statutory provisions; fraudulent documents invalidate subsequent property claims.
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
