Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
G.D. Saxena, J.
Vasant Kumar Jain v. Manakchand and others
First Appeal No.81 of 2002 (Gwalior) : against the judgment and decree dated 1.2.2002, passed in Civil Suit No.17-A/2000 by
Fourth Additional District Judge, Vidisha; Decided on 6.12.2013.
It is admitted in the present case, that after partition, the defendant got the ruined house situated in Ward No.6 on which he constructed dwelling house. He merely disputed the signatures on the memorandum of family settlement/partition deed (Ex.P-1) but not the contents of the document so, the memorandum of partition deed cannot be doubted.
Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly held that the joint family property was orally partitioned between the sharers and thereafter an unregistered memorandum of partition deed was executed between the sharers ..... Admittedly, said partition deed is an unregistered document. Section 17 of the Registration Act provides that document being partition deed should be executed on stamp duty paper properly valued as per provisions contemplated in the Stamp Act and after execution document further requires registration. The evidence on record shows that the defendant-appellant had received share in the property earlier by way of oral partition before executing the memorandum (Ex.P-1) hence, he has no legal right or title over suit property nor could he challenge the mutual partition on the grounds mentioned above. 2010(2) JLJ 210 (SC) followed. 2004(1) MPLJ 217 relied on. 1961 JLJ 1058, 1991(I) MPWN 170, 2001(I) MPWN 104, 2008(1) JLJ 356, 1975 MPLJ 156 and AIR 1959 SC 443 referred to.
[Paras 16 & 17
(2) Partition -- oral partition between family members -- unregistered memorandum to that effect -- execution of document accepted -- signature of family members on document denied but not contents of document -- memorandum of partition cannot be doubted -- registration of document of family settlement or memorandum of partition -- not required. [Paras 16 & 17
(3) Will -- right to Will -- share of executant separated by mutual oral partition -- such shareholder has right to Will of her share.
Held : The share of the executant of the Will was separated by mutual oral partition prior to the execution of the Will, the executant Smt. Rajkumari while depriving her son defendant-appellant, who was separated prior to execution of the Will from the share of her mother, was fully competent to execute the Will in favour of her grandsons (plaintiffs). AIR 2006 SC 3282 followed.
(4) Will -- right of -- owner of property -- she has right to Will even in favour of third person depriving natural heir. AIR 2006 SC 3282 followed. [Para 24
(5) Will -- manner to prove -- executant was ill -- Will read over to her -- thereafter she put her thumb impressions in presence of witnesses -- Will proved by statement of attesting witnesses -- no evidence about suspicious of Will -- Will is not fictitious or doubtful. AIR 1955 SC 346 and AIR 2004 SC 436 followed. [Paras 21 to 24
(6) Succession Act, 1925 -- S.213 -- civil suit for declaration of title and injunction on basis of Will -- grant of probate -- not condition precedent -- Will holder -- he has right to file suit prior grant of probate. (2004)7 SCC 505 followed. [Para 25
(7) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- Ss.34 and 38 -- suit for declaration of title and injunction -- earlier eviction decree against tenant of owner of disputed portion of house -- in prior litigation -- ownership between plaintiffs and defendant not decided -- decision of prior litigation -- does not affect adversely on decision of ownership in subsequent litigation. (1995)6 SCC 580 followed. [Para 28
¼1½ jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 && /kkjk 17 && ekSf[kd foHkktu && bl vk’k; dk vjftLVªhd`r Kkiu && nLrkost dk fu”iknu Lohdkj fd;k x;k && foys[k ij dqVqac ds lnL;ksa ds gLrk{kj ls ekuk fd;k x;k ysfdu nLrkost dh varoZLrq ls ugha && foHkktu Kkiu ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrk && dkSVqafcd O;oLFkkiu dk nLrkost ;k foHkktu dk Kkiu && jftLVªhdj.k dh vis{kk ugha djrkA bl izdj.k esa ;g Lohd`r gS fd foHkktu ds i’pkr~] izfroknh dks okMZ Ø-6 esa fLFkj [kaMgj edku izkIr gqvk Fkk ftl ij mlus fuokl&?kj dk fuekZ.k djk;kA mlus dkSVqafcd O;oLFkkiu ds Kkiu@foHkktu foys[k ¼izn’kZ ih&1½ ij gLrk{kjksa dks fooknxzLr fd;k gS fdarq nLrkost dh varoZLrq ls ugha] foHkktu foys[k ds Kkiu ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrkA blfy,] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us Bhd&gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd la;qDr dqVqac dh laifRr dk lgHkkxhnkjksa ds chp ekSf[kd foHkktu gqvk rFkk rRi’pkr~ lgHkkxhnkjksa ds chp vjftLVªhd`r foHkktu foys[k dk Kkiu fu”ikfnr fd;k x;kA ---- Lohd`rr%] mi;qZDr foHkktu foys[k ,d vjftLVªhd`r nLrkost gSA jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 mica/k djrh gS fd nLrkost foHkktu foys[k gksus ls LVkai vf/kfu;e esa vuq/;kr mica/kksa ds vuqlkj leqfpr :i ls ewY;kafdr LVkai&’kqYd dkxt ij fu”ikfnr gksuk pkfg, rFkk nLrkost ds fu”iknu ds i’pkr~ vkxs jftLVªhdj.k dh vis{kk djrh gSA vfHkys[k ij dh lk{; n’kkZrh gS fd izfroknh&vihykFkhZ us laifRr esa viuk va’k ¼izn’kZ ih&1½ ds fu”iknu ds iwoZ ekSf[kd foHkktu }kjk izkIr dj pqdk Fkk blfy,] og okn laifRr ij dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj ;k gd ugha j[krk vkSj u gh og vkilh foHkktu ds mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vk/kkjksa ij vk{ksfir dj ldrk FkkA 2010¼2½ ts ,y ts 210 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 2004¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 217 voyafcrA 1961 ts ,y ts 1058] 1991¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 170] 2001¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 104] 2008¼1½ ts ,y ts 356] 1975 ,e ih ,y ts 156 rFkk , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 443 fufnZ”VA ¼2½ foHkktu && dqVqac ds lnL;ksa ds chp ekSf[kd foHkktu && bl vk’k; dk vjftLVªhd`r Kkiu && nLrkost dk fu”iknu Lohd`r && nLrkost ij dqVqac ds lnL;ksa ds gLrk{kjksa ls badkj fd;k x;k fdarq nLrkost dh varoZLrq ls ugha && foHkktu Kkiu ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrk && dkSVqafcd O;oLFkkiu dk nLrkost ;k foHkktu Kkiu dk jftLVªhdj.k && visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17½ ¼3½ foy && foy djus dk vf/kdkj && fu”iknh dk va’k vkilh ekSf[kd foHkktu }kjk i`Fkd fd;k x;k && ,sls va’k/kkjh dks vius va’k dh foy djus dk vf/kdkj gSA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % foy ds fu”iknu ds iwoZ foy ds fu”iknh dk va’k vkilh ekSf[kd foHkktu }kjk i`Fkd fd;k x;k] fu”iknh Jherh jktdqekjh ;|fi vius iq= izfroknh&vihykFkhZ dks oafpr dj] tks viuh ek¡ ds va’k ls foy ds fu”iknu ds iwoZ i`Fkd gks x;k] vius ukfr;ksa ¼oknhx.k½ ds i{k esa foy djus ds fy, iw.kZr;k l{ke FkhA , vkb vkj 2006 ,l lh 3282 vuqlfjrA ¼4½ foy && dk vf/kdkj && laifRr dk Lokeh && mls LokHkkfod okfjl dks oafpr dj vU; O;fDr ds i{k esa Hkh foy djus dk vf/kdkj gSA , vkb vkj 2006 ,l lh 3282 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 24½ ¼5½ foy && lkfcr djus dh jhfr && fu”iknh chekj Fkh && foy mls i<+dj lqukbZ xbZ && rRi’pkr~ mlus lkf{k;ksa ds le{k vaxq”B fpg~u yxk, && foy vuqizek.kd lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa ls lkfcr dh xbZ && foy ds lansgtud gksus ds fo”k; esa dksbZ lk{; ugha && foy QthZ ;k lansgtud ughaA , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 346 rFkk , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 436 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21 ls 24½ ¼6½ mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 && /kkjk 213 && gd rFkk fu”ks/kkKk dh ?kks”k.kk ds fy, foy ds vk/kkj ij flfoy okn && izkscsV dk vuqnku && iqjksekO; ‘krZ ugha && foy /kkjd && mls izkscsV vuqnku ds iwoZ okn izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj gSA ¼2004½7 ,l lh lh 505 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 25½ ¼7½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 34 rFkk 38 && gd rFkk fu”ks/kkKk dh ?kks”k.kk ds fy, okn && edku ds fookfnr Hkkx ds Lokeh ds vfHk/kkjh ds fo:) csn[kyh dh fMØh && iwoZ ds eqdnek esa && oknhx.k rFkk izfroknh ds e/; LokfeRo fofuf’pr ugha && iwoZ eqdnek dk fu.kZ; && i’pkr~orhZ eqdnek esa LokfeRo ds fu.kZ; ij izfrdwy :i ls izHkkfor ugha djrkA ¼1995½6 ,l lh lh 580 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 28½
1. This appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant-appellant has been filed against a judgment and decree dated 1st February, 2002 rendered in Civil Suit No.17-A/2000 by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Vidisha (M.P.) decreeing thereby the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of title over the suit property (House No.34) situated in Ward No.5 of the Municipal Council, Vidisha by issuing permanent injunction against the defendant-appellant.
2. The facts in short just for the decision of this appeal are that Pannalal (deceased), the progenitor of the joint family died leaving behind his widow Smt. Rajkumari @ Rajjobai and their three sons, namely, Amarchand (late), Pooranchand (late) and Vasant Kumar (defendant-appellant herein) and also left two houses, first (suit house) is situated in Ward No.5 which was being used for family residence whereas another is situated in Ward No.6 which was a ruined condition and abandoned. The family properties, i.e., two houses mentioned above inherited from late Pannalal Jain were orally partitioned between the successors-members of the family. After family oral partition on the spot, one memorandum of partition, though denied by the defendant-appellant was executed in pursuance of which the successors, namely, Smt. Rajkumari widow of Pannalal, Amarchand and Pooranchand except Vasant Kumar who had no share in that house again partitioned the house on meets and bounds by executing the deed of family settlement on 26.3.1980 whereunder separate and exclusive shares were given. It is stated that before death of Smt. Rajkumari @ Rajjobai wife of Pannalal, she also executed the unregistered Will dated 20th June, 1987 in favour of the plaintiffs. So, after death of Rajkumari @ Rajjobai, the plaintiffs being entitleld claimed her share on the basis of the alleged Will. They filed the suit for declaration of title over the House No.34 situated in Ward No.5 coupled with the share of Smt. Rajkumari @ Rajjobai with a prayer for perpetual injunction against the defendant-appellant.
3. The defendant-appellant Vasant Kumar though admitted the factum of houses belonging to joint Hindu family vis-a-vis partition of the property between the family members, objected to the subsequent family settlement deed executed between them. He disputed that after partition, the plaintiffs and their family started residing in the disputed house as mentioned in the family settlement. The defendant-appellant admitted that the house which was in a ruined condition was given to him in the partition and after constructing the house over there he and his family started residing in the newly constructed house. He further disputed that four rooms falling in portion of Smt. Rajkumari were let out to tenant Ram Narayan Neema at the monthly rent of Rs.150/- but admitted the facts that for eviction of the rented portion, he filed a suit against tenant Ram Narayan Neema, which was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 5th July, 1991 and thereafter the plaintiffs Manakchand and others moved for setting aside ex parte decree dated 5th July, 1991 issued in his favour which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23rd June, 1995 and on appeal by the plaintiffs (Regular Appeal No.71-A/1995), the appellate Court by confirming the judgment and decree dated 23rd June, 1995 dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 26th February, 2000. It was further contended by the defendant that he also challenged the execution of unregistered Will executed by Smt. Rajkumari @ Rajjobai in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, taking the aforesaid grounds it was prayed before the trial Court by the appellant for dismissal of the suit preferred by the plaintiffs.
4. Upon the strength of the pleadings of the parties and the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court framed issues and after appreciation and analysis of the evidence led by the parties found proved that the oral family partit
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
