In a significant legal case, a land dispute between Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman and Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon has been brought before the Supreme Court for resolution. The case involves complex issues surrounding the inheritance and partition of the estate left by late Shri K.S. Dhillon. Both parties, as legal heirs, have been embroiled in a legal battle over the rightful ownership of the property. The Supreme Court’s judgment is set to provide clarity on this contentious issue.
Facts
- Late Shri K.S. Dhillon passed away on 6 January, 2012, leaving behind two legal heirs – son Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon and daughter Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman.
- Their mother, Smt. Jatinder Kaur, had passed away on 1 June, 2004.
- The legal heirs involved are senior citizens; Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman is 69 years old, and Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon is 67 years old.
- Efforts were made to resolve the property disputes through mediation, but they were unsuccessful.
- A suit was filed by Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon based on the will of late Shri K.S. Dhillon, while Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman filed a suit for partition in the Delhi High Court.
- Both parties jointly requested for the appeals to be decided on merits.
- Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for a preliminary decision on additional issues 3A and 3B.
- The suits and appeals revolve around the partition of the estate left by late Col. Kultar Singh Dhillon, who had passed away on 6 January, 2012.
- Various applications were filed to defer proceedings in the cases.
- The trial Judge dismissed the application for deciding additional issues as preliminary issues.
- The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman challenging the trial Judge’s order, but it was also dismissed.
- The Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant.
- An appeal was filed by the defendant against the dismissal of the suit plaint rejection application, which was also dismissed by the High Court.
- The territorial jurisdiction regarding the properties in Punjab was considered misconceived as per Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the application to dismiss the suit plaint filed by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman.
- A Civil Appeal was filed by Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon challenging the order of the Division Bench.
- Another suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, SBS Nagar, Punjab by Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon seeking declaration of ownership of properties based on his late father’s will.
- There is a dispute regarding the estate of late Smt. Jatinder Kaur and the shares devolved after her death.
- Claim of Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman is that the property belonged to late Smt. Kulbhagwant Kaur and devolved upon her children including late Smt. Jatinder Kaur.
- Claim of Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon is that he has a 1/3 share in the estate of late Smt. Jatinder Kaur.
Also Read: Restitution Order in the Case of Temple Management: High Court vs. State
Arguments
- Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the suit plaint citing the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
- The Delhi Land Reforms Act may not be applicable to the property in question due to urbanization under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
- Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 are being contested by both parties.
- The jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi in taking note of the written statement is being challenged by Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon’s counsel.
- Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman’s counsel argues in favor of filing the suit in the High Court of Delhi based on the jurisdiction clauses of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- The additional issues framed in the case are considered crucial and if decided first, may obviate the need for further adjudication.
- The defendant argues that as per Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a suit for immovable property outside Delhi’s jurisdiction should not be filed in Delhi.
- High Court of Delhi considered the written statement instead of only the plaint in a case under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- This deviation from the standard procedure led to the rejection of the claim for the rejectment of the suit plaint.
- The Court submits that at this stage, it is the plaint that should be primarily assessed for determining if the suit is barred by law.
- The deviation from this established procedure by considering the written statement was a crucial factor in non-suiting the claim.
Also Read: Supreme Court’s Judgment on Investigation Standards in Special Case No 37/11
Analysis
- The trial Judge decided not to take additional issues 3A and 3B as preliminary issues due to the suit being filed in 2012 and delayed proceedings caused by various interim applications.
- The High Court directed the pending suit to be disposed of expeditiously.
- The trial Judge’s decision to defer the additional issues was confirmed by the High Court citing the advanced stage of the matter and potential delay if additional issues were to be answered first.
- The question of deciding additional issues 3A and 3B as preliminary issues was left to be examined in the ongoing proceedings before the appropriate Court.
- Both appeals were found to lack substance and were dismissed by the court.
- The High Court’s decisions on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were upheld by the Division Bench, and the court agreed with this stance, seeing no need for interference.
- Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman filed a suit for partition in Delhi High Court (CS(OS) No 373 of 2012) for the same property as Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon’s suit in Punjab.
- Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon filed a suit in Punjab seeking declaration as the absolute owner of the property based on the will of late Shri K.S. Dhillon.
- The High Court reviewed the peculiar facts and found the reasons provided in the revisional jurisdiction to be unassailable.
- The civil appeals on merits did not have substance, but the unique circumstances warranted consideration.
Also Read: Legal Analysis in Custody Battle Resolution
Decision
- Suit C No. 121/12 filed by Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, SBS Nagar, Punjab is transferred to the Delhi High Court and tagged along with the suit for partition filed by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman.
- Both the suits are clubbed together and will be heard jointly due to the subject property being the same and the parties being legal heirs of late Shri K.S. Dhillon.
- Both appeals are dismissed as they are deemed devoid of merit.
- Pending applications are disposed of.
- The High Court of Delhi is requested to expedite the decision on the matters due to the senior citizen status of the litigating parties and the prolonged duration of the cases.
- Copies of the orders will be sent to the concerned Courts for compliance.
Case Title: LT COL. PARAMJIT SINGH DHILLON Vs. HARINDER SINGH GHUMAN
Case Number: C.A. No.-008263-008263 / 2019
