Back
High Court Of Delhi
ROSHAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ZILE SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal Order (OS) 16 of 1980
Decided On : 08/04/1986
PARTITION - ANCESTRAL PROPERTY - DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY - ADMISSIBILITY OF PARTITION DOCUMENTS - INTERPRETATION OF ARRANGEMENTS - EQUALITY OF SHARES - ADJUSTMENT OF AREAS.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over the partition of ancestral property between two branches of a family, involving agricultural land and residential property. The plaintiffs claimed exclusive possession of certain portions of the property, while the defendants asserted ownership based on a will left by their father. The main issue was whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the disputed property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the partition documents, though not registered, were admissible as they were not partition deeds but rather records of an arrangement between the parties regarding the division of property. The court interpreted the arrangements as intended to give equality between the two branches in terms of area, with the larger house going to one branch and more land to the other. The court found that the disputed property was divided in the manner indicated by the plaintiffs, resulting in a half-and-half share between the two parties.
Issues: 1. Admissibility of partition documents under the Registration Act. 2. Interpretation of the arrangements between the parties regarding the division of property. 3. Determination of the ownership of the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the partition documents, Exhibits P-12 and P-1, were not partition deeds requiring compulsory registration under the Registration Act. These documents were considered memoranda of family arrangements, which do not require registration as they are not intended to be used as proof of title. 2. The court interpreted the arrangements between the parties, as recorded in Exhibits P-12 and P-1, as intended to achieve equality between the two branches in terms of area. The larger house was allotted to one branch, while more land was allotted to the other branch to compensate for the smaller house. 3. The court found that the disputed property was divided in the manner indicated by the plaintiffs, resulting in a half-and-half share between the two parties. This division was considered to be fair and equitable, and in accordance with the arrangements between the parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the learned single Judge. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment of a learned single Judge in Suit No. 231 of 1979, in which the claim was for a declaration or alternative relief for *against judgment of D. R. Khanna J. , D/- 18-4-1980. partition and injunction. The plaintiffs, who are now respondents 1 to 4 are four brothers, sons of Shri Soonda. The defendants were the widow, three sons and two daughters of Shri Puran Singh. The present appeal has been filed by the three sons whereas the widow and two daughters of Shri Puran Singh are respondents 5 to 7. The relationship between the parties is indicated from the pedigree table reproduced below : (see page 162 for Pedigree Table) It will be seen from the same that all the parties are descendants from a common ancestor, Chattar Singh. The family had ancestral property consisting of agricultural land and residential property in village Nasirpur, Delhi. The agricultural land was partitioned between Puran Singh and Soonda in 1955. There was a formal mutation to that effect in the Revenue record on llth June, 1955. There was another partition concerning the residential properties, i. e. , the houses, gher/ghatwar and a memorandum of partition was written on 3rd August, 1955, which is Exhibit P-12 on the record. According to this partition, a residential house and some open space marked A-l to A-2 in the plan Exhibit P. W. 25/1 fell to the share of Puran Singh. Soonda got the house B-l.
( 2 ) THESE two partitions are not disputed to the extent mentioned above. The dispute is about some other property shown in the plan Exhibit P. W. 25/1. According to the plaintiffs, Soonda got ghers B-2 to B-5 shown in the yellow colour in the plan Exhibit P. W. 25/1. The gher shown as A-3 was allotted to Puran Singh. The total area of A-l to A-3 and B-l to B-5 was 2,417 sq. yards. According to the plaintiffs, the property was so allotted so as to equate the areas, to bring about this equation ghers B-3 and B-4 were given to Soonda by Puran Singh from his Khasra No. 439/1.
( 3 ) THE plaintiffs claimed that the separate exclusive possession of the shares mentioned in the memorandum of partition were retained by the parties till February, 1971, when there was a dispute between the parties because the plaintiffs wanted to make some" construction on the gher marked B-2, but defendants 1 to 3 demolished the wall and there were criminal proceedings under Chhattar Singh | ^ 1 Jai Ram Ram Lal 1 \ I Puran Smgh Bhagwana Sunda Ram (Smt. Dhan Kaur (died issueless prior widow) to 1916-17) Roshan Bharat Chander Smt. Smt. Zile Singh Raj Karan Dharam Mahasing Singh Bhan Hukam Lado Vir bir Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the property B-2 belonged to defendants 1 to 3. This is why the suit has been filed.
( 4 ) THE prayer of the plaintiffs was that a declaration should be given that the property had already been partitioned, and alternatively, it should be held that there was no such partition and a formal partition should now be effected. Another claim was that a passage should be given as an easement of necessity to the plaintiffs for access to their gher B-2 through field No. 439/1. A mandatory injunction to this effect was claimed.
( 5 ) IT was the claim of the defendants that Puran Singh had left a will by which he left all his property to defendants 1 to 3 excluding defendants 4 to 6. Thus, it was claimed that defendants 4 to 6 were unnecessary parties to the suit.
( 6 ) THE learned trial Court framed a number of issues and proceeded to decide the same. The principal question was whether the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of property marked B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-5 in the plan. After elaborately discussing the evidence, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were the owners of property B-l and B-2 in the plan and A-l and A-2 belonged to the defendants. As far as A-3 and B-5 were
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
