The Delhi High Court recently issued a significant judgement on a dispute concerning the division of the estate left by Late Sardar Sewa Singh. The case involves claims and counterclaims by the legal heirs of the deceased regarding property ownership and partition. The ruling sheds light on the intricacies of inheritance law and property rights. Stay informed about this legal matter that has captivated the attention of many.
Facts
- Late Shri Sardar Sewa Singh divided the suit properties amongst his legal heirs during his lifetime.
- The plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney in favor of his mother to sell his share in one of the properties.
- The suit properties included various plots, shops, and an industrial plot, which were sold and proceeds distributed among legal heirs.
- Defendants claim plaintiff has no right in certain properties as he sold his share or it was distributed during partition.
- Admissions suggest a memorandum of partition was executed among legal heirs in 1975.
- Defendants argue that oral partition took place during late Shri Sardar Sewa Singh’s lifetime.
- Defendants have taken possession and altered the properties according to their respective shares.
- Plaintiff seeks partition, possession, and injunction for the suit properties.
- Plaintiff has admitted to the partition of properties in court.
Issue
- Plaintiff asserts being misled to admit document in Court without counsel present
- Alleges document admission was done in absence of legal representation
- Issue of being misled to admit document without legal advice raised by plaintiff
Arguments
- The plaintiff, who was a minor at the time of Shri Sardar Sewa Singh’s death, denies the execution of the Memorandum of Partition dated 18.07.1975.
- The plaintiff denies the occurrence of any Oral Partition among the legal heirs of Late Shri Sardar Sewa Singh during his lifetime.
- Defendants claim that an oral partition occurred in 1975
- Defendants argue that properties have been distributed by metes and bounds
- Each party is allegedly in possession of their respective share or has sold it
Analysis
- The plaintiff’s vague averments in the Plaint without details or supported documents indicate a lack of material particulars to sustain the claim.
- The evasive Reply in the Replication regarding the execution of Power of Attorney and Relinquishment Deed favors the averments in the Written Statement.
- The plaintiff’s attempt to evade the Memorandum of Partition dated 18.07.1975 is not tenable as his interest was represented by his father when he was a minor.
- The rule of brevity in pleading calls for concise, clear, and precise statements of the point of dispute and cause of action.
- The plaintiff’s denial in the Replication without clarification regarding the current ownership of suit properties raises questions.
- Failure to provide documents supporting claims about the status of suit properties at the time of filing the Suit is a crucial point.
- Defendants’ assertion that the suit properties are sold or in their possession contradicts the plaintiff’s claims of inheritance.
- The plaintiff’s admission of the Memorandum of Partition dated 18.07.1975 strengthens the defendants’ arguments.
- The plaintiff relinquished Property No 1/2701 in favor of his mother through a Relinquishment Deed on 15.01.1990.
- Family matter settled in 1975 is being reagitated in 2012 by the plaintiff.
- Evasive denial without property ownership details is not considered a denial in legal terms.
- Defendant no.1, Smt. Jaswant Kaur, not supporting the plaintiff.
- No explanation given regarding sale of properties and equitable distribution among legal heirs.
- Memorandum of Partition dated 18.07.1975 admitted, proving oral partition has already occurred and been acted upon.
Decision
- The present application is dismissed
- All pending applications are also dismissed
Case Title: MAHINDER SINGH Vs. JASWANT KAUR (DECEASED) & ORS (2024:DHC:3989)
Case Number: CS(OS)-1201/2012
