Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
N.K. Mody and S.S. Dwivedi, JJ.
Rupinder Singh Anand
Vs.
Gajinder Pal Kaur and Ors.
M.A. Nos. 3195 and 3197 of 2009
Decided On: 23.04.2010
After hearing the parties learned Court below allowed the application filed by the appellant in part whereby respondents No.1 to 3 were directed to maintain status-quo with respect to immovable properties alleged in the plaint. Respondents No.1 to 3 were also restrained from alienating the suit property by creating any third party rights so as to avoid further litigation till disposal of the suit. They were also directed to submit statement of movable property such as cash in hand, jewellery, Bank receipts, share certificates, Bonds etc. in the Court within one month. After passing of the order impugned herein, on 14.10.2009, a separate application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 was filed by the appellant which is marked as I.A. No.29/09 wherein it was prayed that pending disposal of the suit, respondents No.1 to 3 be restrained from appropriating to themselves any part of the movable property. It was also prayed that respondents No.1 to 3 be ordered to produce inventory/cash flow of the movable assets. At that time another application was pending which was marked as I.A. No.5/08 wherein the prayer was that respondents No.1 to 3 be restrained from appropriating to themselves the interest accumulating on the fixed deposits in the Bank. Both these applications were also opposed by the respondents No.1 to 3. Both these applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 14.10.2009, against which another appeal i.e. M.A. No.3197/09 has been filed by the appellant. [Para 4
Held: So far as balance of convenience is concerned, keeping in view the age of respondent No.1 and also keeping in view the fact that the respondent No.2 is young widow and is none else but the wife of brother of appellant, this Court is of the view that the balance of convenience is in favour of respondents No.1 and 2, as appellant has already got the property in the lifetime of late Jagjit Singh Anand vide agreement dated 1.6.1991 and also there is a provision in the Will for the appellant and his family. It will not be out of place to mention that on 1.6.1991 when some properties were given to appellant, there is nothing on record to show that properties were also given to respondents No.1 to 3.
So far as irreparable injury is concerned, it is going to be caused to respondents No.1 and 2, if an injunction is granted, because the way in which the suit is going on, it may take its own time and by the time the dispute is finally decided, respondent No.1 may not be available to enjoy the properties left behind by none else than her husband.
It is true that in case appellant succeeds in his suit, then appellant is entitled 1/4th share in the suit property left by late Shri Jagjit Singh Anand, in that case his interests are well protected by the codicil itself wherein the riders are put on the respondent No.1 and again under the principle of lis pendens enacted in section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. So far as apprehension of appellant that respondents No.1 and 2 started negotiation with the brokers for the properties situated at Mumbai is concerned, is without any basis.
Inspite of lapse of considerable time, there is no progress in the suit. On the instance of appellant, record of civil suit is also called which is lying here unnecessarily. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court it will be not only unjust but also harsh to freeze 3/4th undisputed share of respondents No.1 to 3 for the disputed 1/4th claim of appellant. [Paras 20 to 23
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.39 Rr. 1 and 2 -- Succession Act, 1925 -Ss.57 and 213(2) -- Will made by Hindu outside territories failing under clauses (a) and (b), or covering immovable properties situated outside these territories -- registered Will and Codicil cannot be ignored only because it is unprobated. (2001)4 SCC 325 followed. AIR 1927 Mad. 1054 and (2006)10 SCC 442 distinguished. [Para 19
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.43 Rr.1 and 2, O.41 R.22 -- cross-objections in miscellaneous appeal against order appealable under O.43 R.1 -- maintainable. 1959 JLJ 294 relied on. [Para 15
¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 39 fu-1 rFkk 2 && lqfo/kk dk larqyu && oknh vihykFkhZ us e`rd firk dh Lo&vftZr LFkkoj rFkk taxe laifRr;ksa esa pkSFkkbZ fgLls dk nkok fd;k && fo/kok ekrk us vius thou dky ds nkSjku laifRr;ksa dks mi;ksx djus] miHkksx] vf/kHkksx djus rFkk Hkksxus dk nkok fd;k && dksMhfly esa jkbMjus mls laifRr;ksa ds varj.k rFkk@;k vU;ladzke.k ls vo:) fd;k&& fo/kok vius thou ds vafre iM+ko ij tcfd okn dk fofuf‘p; gksus esa yack le; yx ldrk gS && oknh&vihykFkhZ us e`rd ds thoudky ds nkSjku foHkktu esa laifRr dk viuk fgLlk izkIr fd;k && oknh&vihykFkhZ dh iRuh rFkk cPpksa us Hkh foy ds v/khu laifRr izkIr dh && dksMhfly esa jkbMj rFkk laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52 oknh&vihykFkhZ ds fgr dk laj{k.k djrs gSa && ;fn O;kns‘k eatwj fd;k tkrk gS rks izR;FkhZ dz- 1 rFkk 2 dks viwj.kh; {kfr dkfjr gks ldrh gS && lqfo/kk muds i{k esa gSa && izR;FkhZx.k ds rhu&pkSFkkbZ vfookfgr fgLls ij jksd yxkuk u dsoy vU;k;iw.kZ gksxk cfYd dBksjrk gksxh && izR;FkhZx.k e`rd dh bPNkvksa ds vuqlkj laifRr;ksa dk miHkksx djus ds fy, Lora= ijarq taxe laifRr;ksa dk lgh fglkc j[ksaxsA
ekeys ds laf{kIr rF; gS fd izR;FkhZ dz- 1 vihykFkhZ dh ekrk gSA izR;FkhZ dz- 2 e`rd tlizhr flag vkuan tks vihykFkhZ dk HkkbZ gksrk gS] dh fo/kok gSA izR;FkhZ dz- 3 izF;FkhZ dz- 2 dk nRrd iq= gS tcfd izR;FkhZ dz- 4 vihykFkhZ dh cfgu gSA izR;FkhZ dz- 7 ls 9 vihykFkhZ dh iRuh rFkk cPps gSa tcfd izR;FkhZ dz- 10 ls 12 izR;FkhZ dz- 4 ds cPps gSA txthrflag dh] tks vihykFkhZ dk firk Fkk rFkk izR;FkhZ dz- 1 dk ifr Fkk] 23-4-2008 dks e`R;q gks xbZA mldh e`R;q ds i‘pkr~ vihykFkhZ }kjk izR;FkhZx.k ds fo:) 28-8-2008 dks foHkktu ds fy, okn izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlesa ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd e`rd txthr flag e-dz- 630@2] U;w iykfl;k] bankSj dk fuoklh Fkk rFkk ;ku] cSad esa fuf{kIr uxn] Lo.kZ] vkHkw"k.k rFkk ca/ki= bR;kfn dh izd`fr esa vU; laifRr;ksa ds vfrfjDr dbZ LFkkoj laifRr;ksa dk Lokeh FkkA
vU; vfHkopuksa ds vykok] vihykFkhZ }kjk okn esa ;g Hkh vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd txthr flag }kjk 28-6-2003 dks foy fu"ikfnr fd;k tkuk vfHkdfFkr gS rFkk dksMhfly fnukad 4-1-2008 rFkk bl foy rFkk dksMhfly dh oS/krk vihykFkhZ }kjk vkf{kIr fd;k x;k gSA vihykFkhZ }kjk okn ds lkFk flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 39 fu;e 1 rFkk 2 ds v/khu vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlesa ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k fd izR;FkhZ dz- 1 rFkk 2 us eqacbZ fLFkr laifRr;ksa ds fy, nykyksa ls okrkZ izkjaHk dj nh gSA ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd vihykFkhZ us izFken`"V~;k ekeyk gS rFkk lqfo/kk dk larqyu mlds i{k esa gSA ;g izkFkZuk dh xbZ fd izR;FkhZ dz-1 rFkk 2 dks e`rd dh laink ds fdlh Hkh Hkkx dk vU;ladzke.k djus ls vo:) fd;k tk,A
¼iSjk 2½
i{kdkjksa ds lquus ds i‘pkr~ fo)ku fupys U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vkosnu Hkkxr% eatwj fd;k ftlds }kjk izR;FkhZ dz- 1 ls 3 dks okn esa vfHkfFkr LFkkoj laifRr;ksa ds laca/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[kus dk funs‘k fn;k x;kA izR;FkhZ dz- 1 ls 3 fdlh vU; i{kdkj ds vf/kdkjksa ds l`tu }kjk okn laifRr dk vU;ladzke.k djus ls Hkh vo:) fd, x, rkfd okn ds fuiVkjs rd vfrfjDr eqdnesckth ls cpk tk ldsA mUgsa ,d ekl ds Hkhrj taxe laifRr ;Fkk udn vkHkw"k.k] cSad jlhnksa] ‘ks;j izek.ki=] ca/ki= bR;kfn dk dFku U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djus dk funs‘k Hkh fn;k x;kA blesa vkf{kIr vkns‘k ikfjr gksus ds i‘pkr~ vihykFkhZ }kjk 14-10-2009 dks vkns‘k 39 fu;e 1 rFkk 2 ds v/khu ,d i`Fkd~ vkosnu Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k tks vkb , dz- 29@09 ds :i esa fpfUgr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ;g izkFkZuk dh xbZ fd okn dk fuiVkjk yafcr jgus rd] izR;FkhZ dz- 1 ls 3 taxe laifRr ds fdlh Hkh Hkkx dk Lo;a ds fy, fofu;ksx djus ls vo:) fd;k tk,A ;g Hkh izkFkZuk dh xbZ fd izR;FkhZ dz- 1 ls 3 tks taxe vkLr;ksa dh rkfydk@udn izokg izLrqr djus dk vkns‘k fn;k tk,A ml le; vU; vkosnu yafcr Fkk tks vkb , dz- 5@08 ds :i esa fpfUgr fd;k x;k ftlesa izkFkZuk Fkh fd izR;FkhZ dz- 1 ls 3 dks cSad esa lkof/k tek ij lafpr C;kt dk Lo;a ds fy, fofu;ksx djus ls vo:) fd;k tk,A bu nksuksa vkosnuksa dk izR;FkhZ dz- 1 ls 3 }kjk Hkh fojks/k fd;k x;kA ;s nksuksa vkosnu fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vkns‘k fnukad 14-10-2009 }kjk [kkfjt dj fn, x,] ftlds fo:) vihykFkhZ }kjk vU; vihy vFkkZr~ ,e , dz- 3197@09 izLrqr dh xbZ gSA
¼iSjk 4½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tgk¡ rd lqfo/kk ds larqyu dk ljksdkj gS] izR;FkhZ dz- 1 dh vk;q dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, rFkk bl rF; dks Hkh /;ku esa j[krs gq, fd izR;FkhZ dz- 2 r:.k fo/kok gS rFkk vkSj dksbZ ugha cfYd vihykFkhZ ds HkkbZ dh iRuh gS] bl U;k;ky; dh jk; gS fd lqfo/kk dk larqyu izR;FkhZ dz- 1 rFkk 2 ds i{k esa gS] pwafd vihykFkhZ igys&gh fnoaxr Jh txthr flag vkuan ds thoudky esa djkj fnukad 1-6-1991 }kjk laifRr izkIr dj pqdk gS rFkk foy esa Hkh vihykFkhZ rFkk mlds dqVqac ds fy, mica/k gSA ;g mfYyf[kr djuk vlaxr ugha gksxk fd 1-6-1991 dks tc dqN laifRr;ka vihykFkhZ dks nh xbZ Fkh] vfHkys[k ij ;g nf‘kZr djus ds fy, dqN Hkh ugha gS fd izR;FkhZ dz- 1 ls 3 dks Hkh laifRr;ka nh xbZ FkhA
tgk¡ rd viwj.kh; {kfr dk ljksdkj gS] ;g izR;FkhZ dz- 1 rFkk 2 dks dkfjr gksus okyh gS] ;fn O;kns‘k eatwj fd;k tkrk gS] D;ksafd ftl jhfr ls okn py jgk gS] ;g viuk le; ys ldrk gS rFkk ftl le; rd fookn vafre :i ls fofuf‘pr gksrk gS] izR;FkhZ dz- 1 fdlh vkSj }kjk ugha cfYd vius ifr }kjk NksM+h xbZ laifRr;ksa dk miHkksx djus ds fy, miyC/k ugha gks ldrh gSA
;g lR; gS fd ;fn vihykFkhZ vius okn esa lQy gksrk gS] rc vihykFkhZ fnoaxr Jh txthr flag vkuan }kjk NksM+h xbZ okn laifRr esa pkSFkkbZ fgLls dk gdnkj gksrk gS] ml fLFkfr esa mlds fgr Lo;a dksMhfly }kjk ftlesa izR;FkhZ dz- 1 ds Åij jkbMj j[ks x, gSa rFkk iqu% laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52 esa vf/kfu;e fopkjk/khu okn ds fl)kar ds v/khu Hkyh izdkj lajf{kr gSA tgk¡ rd vihykFkhZ dh vk‘kadk fd izR;FkhZ dz- 1 rFkk 2 us eqacbZ fLFkr laifRr;ksa ds fy, nykyksa ls okrkZ izkjaHk dh] ;g fcYdqy fujk/kkj gSA
i;kZIr le; chrus ds ckotwn] okn esa dksbZ izxfr ugha gSA vihykFkhZ dh izsj.kkij flfoy okn dk vfHkys[k Hkh eaxk;k x;k tks ;gk¡ vuko‘;d :i ls iM+k gqvk gSA ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa vihykFkhZ ds fookfnr pkSFkkbZ nkos ds fy, izR;FkhZ dz- 1 ls 3 ds rhu&pkSFkkbZ vfookfnr fgLls ij jksd yxkuk u dsoy vU;k;iw.kZ gksxk cfYd dBksjrk Hkh gksxhA
¼iSjk 20 ls 23½
¼2½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 39 fu- 1 rFkk 2 && mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 && /kkjk 57 rFkk 213¼2½ && [kaM ¼d½ rFkk ¼[k½ ds v/khu vkus okys jkT;{ks=ksa ds ckgj ;k mu jkT;{ks=ksa ds ckgj fLFkr LFkkoj laifRr;ksa dks vkPNkfnr djrh gqbZ fganw }kjk dh xbZ foy && jftLVªhd`r foy rFkk dksMhfly dh ek= blfy, mis{kk ugha dh tk ldrh fd ;g izkscsV ugha dh xbZ gSA ¼2001½4 ,l lh lh 325 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1927 enzkl 1054 rFkk ¼2006½10 ,l lh lh 442 izHksfnrA
¼iSjk 19½
¼3½ flfoy izfd;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 43 fu;e 1 rFkk 2] vk- 41 fu- 22 && vk- 43 fu- 1 ds v/khu vihyh vkns‘k ds fo:) izdh.kZ vihy esa izzR;k{ksi && xzkg~;A 1959 ts ,y ts 294 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 15½
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 3197/09 as in both the appeals, parties are one and same and both the appeals are arising out of Civil Suit No. 2-A/08. In M.A. No. 3195/09 the appeal is filed against the order dated 7-10-2009 passed by District Judge, Indore whereby the application filed by the Appellant under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed in part. In M.A. No. 3195/09 cross-objections have also been filed by the Respondent No. 1. In M.A. No. 3197/09 the appeal is against the order dated 14-10-2009 whereby LA. Nos. 5/08 and 29/09 filed by the Appellant for restraining the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from appropriating/alienating the immovable property was dismissed.
2. Short facts of the case are the Respondent No. 1 is mother of the Appellant. Respondent No. 2 is the widow of deceased Jaspreet Singh Anand who happens to be brother of the Appellant. Respondent No. 3 is adopted son of Respondent No. 2 while Respondent No. 4 is sister of the Appellant. Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are wife and children of the Appellant while Respondent Nos. 10 to 12 are children of Respondent No. 4 Jagjitsingh who was father of Appellant and husband of Respondent No. 1 and had died on 23-4-2008. After his death a suit for partition was filed by the Appellant against the Respondents on 28-8-2008 wherein it was alleged that deceased Jagjitsingh was resident of H.N. 630/2, New Palasia Indore and was owner of many immovable properties besides other properties in the nature of vehicles, cash in deposits in bank, gold, jewellery and bonds etc., details of which were mentioned in para-13 of the plaint. It was further alleged that deceased Jagjitsingh Anand has not made any Will and died interstate and, therefore his estate would devolve on his wife, Respondent No. 1, Appellant his sister-Respondent No. 4 and his late brother's widow Manmeetsingh-Respondent No. 2 and her adopted son-Respondent No. 3. It was alleged that on the demise of his father, Appellant asked for a partition from the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the assets left behind by the deceased as on date of his death claiming his one-fourth. It was alleged that deceased Jagjitsingh has left behind the property i.e. cash, fixed deposits, share and bonds approximately Rs. 20 Crores. It was alleged that since the Appellant is having one-fourth share in the property left by Jagjitsingh which includes immovable and movable, therefore it was prayed that suit be decreed and after partition, one-fourth share be given to the Appellant. Apart form other pleadings it was also alleged by the Appellant in the plaint that there is a Will alleged to have been executed by Jagjitsingh on 28-6-2003 and a Codicil dated 4-1-2008 and validity of these Will and Codicil were challenged by the Appellant. Along with the suit an application was field by the Appellant under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure wherein it was alleged that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have started negotiation with the brokers for the properties situated at Mumbai. It was alleged that Appellant is having prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour. It was prayed that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from alienating any part of the estate of the deceased, failing which the Appellant would suffer substantial and irreparable injury and would be compelled to litigate with third parties. In the application it was prayed that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be restrained by issuing temporary injunction from alienating or creating third party rights.
3. The suit and the application filed by the Appellant was contested by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by filing separate written statement. In the written statement filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 it was not disputed that various properties were left behind by the deceased Jagjitsingh but it was alleged that all the properties were self earned properties and in his lifetime Jagjitsingh had made arrangement vide registered Wil
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
