Delhi HC dismisses appeal; Upholds daughter’s Class I inheritance rights.
CASE TITLE – Ms. Veeneta (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. v. Ms. Jyoti Gupta
CASE NUMBER – FAO(OS) 143/2023 & C.M.Nos.67425-67426/2023
DATED ON – 22.05.2024
QUORUM – Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Ms. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Appeal has been filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, challenging the impugned order dated 28th November, 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) No. 392/2019, dismissing the I.A. No. 14019/2021 filed by the Appellants. Late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta was the defendant no.1 in the civil suit filed by Respondent seeking partition, possession, rendition of accounts and ancillary reliefs qua the estate of late Sh. Parmanand Gupta. The suit properties relevant for the present appeal are: (a) Property No. D-133, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi – 110033; (b) Plot No. D-136, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi; (c) Plot No. D-114, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi; and (d) House No. 1601, Outram Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi – 110009
ISSUES
Whether the Appellants are entitled to the properties from the late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta, by virtue of previous unregistered purchase agreements.
Whether the past settlement between Sh. Parmanand Gupta and his first wife (Respondent’s mother) extinguish the Respondent’s inheritance rights.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, prescribes the order of Class-I heirs.
Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, prescribes the rights of a spouse in inheritance.
Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, prescribes the process of obtaining a grant of letters of administration for an intestate estate.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that Appellant No. (ii) i.e., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singhal (‘SKS’) is the brother of the late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta. He stated that Appellant No. (ii) had purchased properties bearing no. D-114 and D-136, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi, from late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta in the year 2006 by way of the customary documents i.e., Agreement to Sell (ATS), General Power of Attorney (GPA), receipt and Will. He stated that though there is no registered sale deed in favour of Appellant No. (ii), these customary documents are sufficient to entitle the said Appellant to be impleaded as a legal representative of late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta in the suit proceedings. He stated that in the alternative, it was also the case of the Appellants herein that properties bearing no. D-114 and D-136, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi and property no. 1601, Outram Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi – 110009 were purchased by late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta from late Sh. Parmanand Gupta in the year 1999-2000. He stated that at the relevant time, the sale consideration for purchase was provided by Appellant Nos. (i) and (ii) to late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta. He stated that, therefore, the interest of late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta in these three properties would devolve upon the Appellants herein. The Learned Counsel further stated that during the divorce by mutual consent of late Sh.Parmanand Gupta with his first wife, Smt. Madhu Gupta (i.e., the mother of Respondent), a settlement was arrived at between the said parties. He stated that as per the said settlement, all rights of the Respondent qua late Sh. Parmanand Gupta stood settled. He stated that, therefore, Respondent is not entitled to any inheritance from the estate of late Sh. Parmanand Gupta
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that as held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, it is the Respondent herein, who is the natural legal heir of late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘Act of 1956’). He stated that, therefore, the Appellants are not entitled to substitution in the suit, and that after the death of late Sh. Parmanand Gupta, his mother late Smt. Bhagwati had filed a probate petition bearing PC No. 42284/2016, under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘Act of 1925’) seeking a grant of letters of administration for his estate. The said petition was opposed by the late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta, who filed her objections admitting the ownership of the late Sh. Parmanand Gupta qua the suit properties but claimed the exclusive right of inheritance based on an unregistered Will dated 12th December, 2003. He stated that the late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta propounded the said unregistered Will for contending that the subject properties have devolved upon her exclusively. The Trial Court after concluding evidence, vide judgment dated 17th March, 2018, returned a categorical finding that the said unregistered Will dated 12th December, 2003 was not genuine and that Sh. Parmanand Gupta died intestate. The aforesaid finding in the said judgment has not been challenged by late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta and the same has become final, and is binding on any person claiming through her.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi noticed that the underlying suit for partition had been filed qua the estate of late Sh. Parmanand Gupta by his only daughter i.e., the Respondent herein. In the suit, the Respondent impleaded her stepmother, Ms. Vaneeta Gupta, as defendant no. 1 and her grandmother, Smt. Bhagwati, as defendant no. 2. With the death of Ms. Vaneeta Gupta and Smt. Bhagwati, the Respondent is the sole surviving Class-I legal heir of late Sh. Parmanand Gupta. They also took notice of the case between the parties which took place before the Trial Court, where, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 17th March, 2018, concluded that the Will dated 12th December, 2003, was not genuine and declared that late Sh. Parmanand Gupta died intestate. The findings returned by the Probate Court in the said judgment had not been challenged and has attained finality, and stated that the ownership of late Sh. Parmanand Gupta of the suit properties is not in dispute. The Hon’ble High Court held that the said findings of the learned Single Judge are correct on a plain reading of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1956, and that the submission of the Appellants that the properties which (i) were purchased by the late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta and also, (ii) which devolved on late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta from late Sh. Parmanand Gupta, would both be inherited by the Appellants under the Act of 1956 is contrary to law and without any merits. The Appellants are, therefore, not entitled to inherit late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta’s estate under the Act of 1956. They further stated that the contention of the Appellants that the Respondent is not entitled to claim succession under the Act of 1956 to the estate of late Sh. Parmanand Gupta due to the settlement recorded between late Sh. Parmanand Gupta and late Ms. Madhu Gupta during their divorce was without any basis, and that there was no stipulation in the said settlement that the Respondent’s rights to succession under Act of 1956 shall stand extinguished. The Hon’ble High Court held that the Respondent is admittedly the Class-I legal heir of late Sh. Parmanand Gupta as per Section 8 of the Act of 1956 and the said settlement does not curtail her rights of succession under the Act of 1956, and the appeal was thereby dismissed, stating that is had no merits.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
