Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Birbal Saini – Appellant
versus
Satywati – Respondent
RSA No.196 of 2019 and CM Appl. No.42921 of 2019
Decided on 24.12.2024

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Ms. Barnali Paul, Ms. Hardikaa Kalia and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 – Such properties remain undivided within joint families with legal heirs enjoying their shares – Non-coparceners have no ownership rights.
(2) Property obtained through inheritance, whether by way of Will or upon demise of property owner, is classified as inherited property – Inheritor holds exclusive ownership over said property and is entitled to freely transfer, sell, or dispose of it at their discretion – There are no claims based on birthright, with ownership being governed by legal owner’s directives, Will, or applicable succession laws.
(3) Second appeal – Section 100 of CPC confers limited jurisdiction on High Court to deal only with any legal error apparent on face of record.

Headnote:
(A) Property Law – 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 – Such properties remain undivided within joint families with legal heirs enjoying their shares – Non-coparceners have no ownership rights – If a coparcener is sole surviving heir, they inherit entire property – In cases with multiple coparceners, each heir receives a proportional share based on number of coparceners – Conversely, property obtained through inheritance, whether by way of Will or upon demise of property owner, is classified as inherited property – Inheritor holds exclusive ownership over said property and is entitled to freely transfer, sell, or dispose of it at their discretion – There are no claims based on birthright, with ownership being governed by legal owner’s directives, Will, or applicable succession laws – Interest of a legal heir in inherited property is not established at birth, as with ancestral property – Rather, it is formally conferred through a testamentary will or agreement – A legal heir can even be disqualified as a successor – Property owner holds absolute authority over designating their successor and setting conditions for such succession. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Scope and ambit – Section 100 of CPC confers limited jurisdiction on High Court to deal only with any legal error apparent on face of record – To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent and must have a material bearing on decision of case, if answered either way, insofar as rights of parties before it are concerned – It will depend on facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, paramount overall consideration being need for striking a judicious balance between indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in life of any lis. (Para 20)
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

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 the decree of mandatory i