Dismissed

Chander Kanta Malhotra and Ors. v. DDA and Ors.

Delhi HC17 Aug 2011W.P.(C)/5951/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the Delhi Development Authority's refusal to allot land to respondents but instead to petitioners. The petitioners claimed succession through a predecessor who died before a female heir, invoking a specific succession rule to claim rights. The Court analyzed the timeline of deaths under the Hindu Succession Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Chander Kanta Malhotra and Ors. Vs DDA and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of decision: 17^th August, 2011.

¶3

¶4

W.P.(C) 5951/2011 & CM No.12038/2011 (for stay)

¶5

% SMT. CHANDER KANTA MALHOTRA & ORS …Petitioners Through: Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv.

¶6

Versus

¶7

DDA & ORS. ..... Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr. Rahul Bhardwaj, Advocates for R-1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM :-

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶11

Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary in the Digest?

¶13

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶14

The writ petition impugns the letter dated 5^th July, 2011 of the respondent DDA refusing to include the names of the petitioners in the allotment made of Plot Nos.C-1, 2, 25 to 27, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, Delhi in favour of the respondents no.4 to 9.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

W.P.(C) No.5951/2011

¶17

One Sh. Inder Raj kakkar was entitled to allotment of alternative plots

¶18

from the respondents no.1 to 3 DDA. However before the allotment could be made, the said Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar died on 2^nd April, 1982 leaving his wife as his only natural heir; he and his wife being issueless.

¶19

The wife of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar namely Smt. Savitri Kakkar also died issueless and intestate on 10^th August, 1986. No allotment could be made in her life time also and respondent DDA has made the allotment now, only in June, 2011. The respondents no.4 to 9 in whose favour the allotment has been made are the legal heirs of the brothers/sisters of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar.

¶20

The three petitioners are the legal heirs of Sh. Ishwar Das Kakkar another brother of late Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar. However while the respondents no.4 to 9 are the legal heirs of the brothers/sisters of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar who died after the demise of both Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar and his wife Smt. Savitri Kakkar, the predecessor of the petitioners namely Sh. Ishwar Das Kakkar died on 7^th October, 1983 i.e. after the demise of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar but before the demise of Smt. Savitri Kakkar.

¶21

W.P.(C) No.5951/2011 Page 2 of 4

¶22

The respondent DDA has not considered the petitioners to be the legal heirs of late Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar. The petitioners claim that they are. They contend that the rights to the aforesaid land of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar on his demise were inherited by his wife Smt. Savitri Kakkar and Smt. Savitri Kakkar having died issueless, the rights in the land aforesaid inherited by her from her husband, under Section 15(2)(b) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 devolve upon the heirs of her husband i.e. late Sh. Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar. It is further contended that thus Rule 3 in Section 16 of the Act would apply and the heirs of late Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar would be determined by deeming Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar to have died immediately after the demise of Smt. Savitri Kakkar on 10^th August, 1986. Reliance in this regard is placed on Bhagat Ram (D) Vs. Teja Singh (D) AIR 2002 SC 1 and Bajaya Vs. Gopikabai (1978) 2 SCC 542.

¶23

I fail to see as to how the petitioners would still become the heirs of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar. Even if Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar is deemed to have died immediately after the demise of his wife on 10^th August, 1986, his heirs as per the schedule to the Act, in the absence of Class-I heirs and in the absence

¶24

W.P.(C) No.5951/2011 Page 3 of 4

¶25

of his father amongst the Class-II heirs, would be his brothers and sisters i.e. only those brothers and sisters who were alive on 10^th August, 1986.

¶26

Sh. Ishwar Das Kakkar (whose legal heirs the petitioners are) though a brother of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar had admittedly died prior to the demise of Smt. Savitri Kakkar. He would thus not be the legal heir of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar and the petitioners claiming through him have been rightly held by

¶27

the respondent DDA to be not the legal heirs of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar.

¶28

The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶29

CM No.12039/2011 (for exemption)

¶30

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶31

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE)

¶32

AUGUST 17, 2011 bs

¶33

Page 4 of 4

¶34

W.P.(C) No.5951/2011

Chander Kanta Malhotra and Ors. v. DDA and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Kanta Malhotra and Ors. v. DDA and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Ram Vs the Management of Sona Fashion & Anr.

Narain Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Good Year Security Services Regd Vs Gnct and Ors.

Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs D.D.A. & Ors.

S.T.P.Singh Vs the School Management of G.H.P.S.,Fateh Nagar & Ors.

Vk Chaturvedi Vs UOI

Global Educational & Social Trust Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Parcel Porters Association and Ors.

Jai Ram Vs the Management of Sona Fashion & Anr.

Narain Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs D.D.A. & Ors.

Veer Mahendra Prakash Singh Vs the Management of Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidhayapeeth & Anr.

J.P.Juneja Vs Union of India and Another

Ifci Limited Vs Narenender Kumar