0

Inheritance Dispute: Delhi High Court Rejects Alleged Will, Upholds Daughter’s Rights Under Intestate Succession Laws, Citing Failure to Meet Legal Criteria

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , , ,

Case Title – Vandana Batra Vs. Anupam Gupta & Anr.

Case Number – CS(OS) 289/2022

Dated on – 10th May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Jasmeet Singh

FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of Vandana Batra Vs. Anupam Gupta & Anr., whirls around a dispute concerning the partition of the properties and assets in the estate of Late Sh. M.L. Gupta. Vandana Batra, the Appellant, instituted a suit for partition, claiming for a 1/3rd share in the properties and assets of her late father, Late Sh. M.L. Gupta, who had died intestate. The Appellant, in this case, asserted her entitlement to a share in the estate of her father, prompting the suit for partition. The Respondent, in this case, Anupam Gupta, contested the suit for partition, claiming that their late father had executed a will prior to his death, distributing all the assets among the beneficiaries. The Respondent alleged that the Appellant was aware of this will, where she was the largest beneficiary. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that the Appellant deliberately excluded certain properties acquired by their father during his lifetime from the suit of the partition, which, if excluded, would result in a partial partition, and render the suit unmaintainable. The Appellant, in this case, sought to amend the written statement to include the additional paragraphs under the heading of preliminary objections. These amendments involve the incorporation of the details about the properties acquired by the father during his lifetime, which were initially excluded by the Appellant. The Respondent, opposed the amendments primarily on the grounds of limitations and legality regarding certain properties.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Appellant is entitled to a 1/3rd share of the properties?
Whether the alleged Will purportedly executed by Late Sh. M.L. Gupta prior to his death distributing all the assets amongst the beneficiaries with the Appellant being the largest beneficiaries authentic and legal?
Whether the exclusion of certain properties acquired by Late Sh. M.L. Gupta during his lifetime from the suit for partition affect the viability of the suit for partition?
Whether the court should allow the proposed amendments and whether they are legally admissible?
Whether the proposed amendments fall within the ambit of limitation period of law and whether they align with the procedural requirements?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 prescribes the Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right
Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Prohibits the right to recover property held benami
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prescribes that the Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 prescribes the Production of Shop-Book
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 prescribes the Saving of inherent powers of the Courts

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellant is entitled to a 1/3rd share of the property and assets of her father, Late Sh. M.L. Gupta, who died intestate and that as the legal heir of her dead father, she has the rightful claim to a share in his estate through the suit for partition.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the alleged Will purportedly executed by Late Sh. M.L. Gupta is non-existent and is deemed invalid and therefore the properties should be divided equally among his legal heirs, inclusive of the Appellant.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case, sought inclusion of all the properties owned by Late Sh. M.L. Gupta in the suit for partition and that the exclusion of certain properties by the respondent is unjustifiable, thus, all the assets of the deceased should be subjected to partition among the legal heirs.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the proposed amendments to the written statement should be allowed by the court and that the amendments are a necessity for proper reflection of the issues in the dispute to ensure a fair adjudication of the case.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Late Sh. M.L. Gupta executed a valid Will distributing all his assets amongst the beneficiaries, with the Appellant being the largest beneficiary and that the Will should be upheld by the court, directing for the distribution of the properties accordingly.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the exclusion of certain properties from the suit for partition were intended to be excluded by the deceased from the inheritance and that the inclusion of these properties would distort the distribution of assets as per the alleged will.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case, opposed the proposed amendments to the written statement and that the proposed amendments are legally permissible and sought to introduce new claims beyond the permissible scope of the suit.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Vandana Batra Vs. Anupam Gupta & Anr., meticulously considered the arguments furnished by both the parties and analysed the evidences presented concerning the existence and the validity of the alleged Will purportedly executed by Late Sh. M.L. Gupta. The court examined the claims concerning the partition and the inclusion or exclusion of the specific properties in the suit for partition. The court, concerning the existence and the validity of the alleged Will, scrutinized the evidence to determine whether the alleged Will met the legal requirements for validity. The court considered the factors such as the authenticity of the signatures, testimonies of the witnesses, and any potential evidence of coercion or undue influence. The court, in assessing the entitlement to partition, examined the relevant principles governing the intestate succession and the rights of the legal heir to the estate of the deceased. The court considered whether the Appellant had a legitimate claim to a share in the assets of her late father and whether this claim superseded any provisions made in the alleged Will. The court found that the alleged Will is invalid and not enforceable. Upon the examination of the evidences, inclusive of the signatures, testimonies of the witnesses, and other relevant factors, the court was not convinced beyond the reasonable doubt that the document met the legal requirements for a valid will and thus, the provisions of the alleged Will regarding the distribution of assets were not upheld. The court acknowledged the Appellant as a legal heir to the estate of her late father and pursuant to the intestate succession, the Appellant is entitled to the share in her father’s assets. The court ordered the inclusion of all the properties owned by Late Sh. M.L. Gupta at the time of his death in the suit for partition and recognized the right of the Appellant and other legal heirs to seek a division of these assets according to their respective shares determined by the law.
“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 – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Ancestral Ownership Claims, Overturns Consolidation Officer’s Order: Highlights Lack of Jurisdiction.

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Case Title – Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. Vs. Meena & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 380

Case Number – Civil Appeal No. 8971/2014 & Contempt Petition (C) No. 86/2024 In Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-8744/2014

Dated on – 25th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Surya Kant

FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. Vs. Meena & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 380, whirls around a dispute over the ownership rights regarding the specific land parcels in the Revenue Estate of Village of Mustafabad, District Haridwar, Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). The land in dispute originally belonged to Angat, who had three sons namely Ramji Lal, Khushi Ram, and Pyara. Upon the death of Pyara without any issue, his share was equally divided between his two brothers. Kalyan Singh, the son of Khushi Ram, inherited the share of his father and was recognized as a co-owner of the said land, as evident in the entries in the revenue record. The proceedings of Consolidation were initiated in the village in the late 1950s or early 1960s under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953. In the course of these proceedings, Ramji Lal, the uncle of Kalyan Singh, sought to remove the name of Kalyan Singh from the record of ownership, claiming his whereabouts were unknown. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, annihilated the name of Kalyan Singh from the record and declared him Civilly dead, effectively transferring the ownership to Ramji Lal. Kalyan Singh, in the year 1985, instituted a suit contending his half-share in the property, which initially was decreed in his favour but later partly overturned by the Board of Revenue. The case went through various appeals and petitions, leading to the current legal proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Consolidation Officer annihilating the name of Kalyan Singh from the record of ownership and declaring him civilly dead is valid?
Whether the subsequent legal actions initiated by Kalyan Singh were barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953?
Whether being an owner, Kalyan Singh, needed to seek a decree of possession in his declaratory suit?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 3(11) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 prescribes the Definition of a Tenure-Holder as a Bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights, asami, government lessee, or grantee.
Section 9(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 prescribes that a Consolidation Officer must report to the Collector on whether to draw up a plan.
Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 envisages a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue Court for the grant of declaration or adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area for which consolidation proceedings have commenced.
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prescribes the Discretion of the court for declaration of status or right

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the order of the Consolidation Officer, passed under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, deprived Kalyan Singh of his ownership rights and relinquished subsequent legal actions unavailing.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by intervening with the order of the Board detaining the case for further consideration.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the possession of the land by Kalyan Singh, even if not exclusive, should be deemed as possession on behalf of all co-owners, averting the need for a separate decree of possession.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the order of the Consolidation Officer was void as it exceeded the jurisdiction of the officer and infringed upon the ancestral rights of Kalyan Singh.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, did not apply to Kalyan Singh, who was already a co-owner of the land before the initiation of the proceedings of the consolidation.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the suit for declaration instituted by Kalyan Singh was justified and not barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. Vs. Meena & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 380, held that the order of the Consolidation officer annihilating the name of Kalyan Singh was null and void as it exceeded the jurisdiction of the Officer and infringed upon the ancestral rights of Kalyan Singh. The court clarified that the Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, only suspends the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Courts during the proceedings of consolidation and does not empower the officer to divest a tenure holder of vested rights. The court in this present case, dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the contentions of the Appellant, upholding the right of Kalyan Singh as a co-owner. The court, concerning the contempt petition, declined to entertain the same, as the appeals had been decided on the merits and the legal heirs of Kalyan Sigh could seek further remedies.
“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 – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment