Dismissed

Madan Lal Chhabra v. Kharati Lal Chhabra and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2009RSA/1746/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application, the appellant sought to recall an order dismissing his appeal by claiming non-authorisation of a Rs. 60,000 payment allegedly representing his share. The Court dismissed the application, holding the appellant is estopped from denying the settlement after signing it and accepting payment, noting his current lack of interest in the deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

Application to recall order dated 17.9.2009 allowed, principal appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Madan Lal Chhabra Vs Kharati Lal Chhabra… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

R.S.A No. 1746 of 2008 (O&M)

¶2

::1::

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.M No. 3888-C of 2010 and R.S.A No. 1746 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : August 04, 2010

Madan Lal Chhabra,

...... Appellant (s)

Kharati Lal Chhabra and others,

¶9

...... Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

¶13

Present : Mr. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

¶14

Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

*******

¶16

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶17

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶18

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶19

*******

¶20

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

¶21

C.M No.3888-C of 2010

¶22

This is an application for recalling of the order dated 17.9.2009 on the ground that the applicant/appellant had never authorized his counsel to make the statement that he would be satisfied with the payment of Rs.60,000/-. The consequential prayer is that the main appeal should be heard on merits.

¶23

For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed, the order

¶24

R.S.A No. 1746 of 2008 (O&M) ::2::

¶25

dated 17.9.2009 is recalled and the main appeal is heard on merits. R.S.A No.1746 of 2008

¶26

The appellant has challenged the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing his suit for partition and possession of 1/7^th share in the house in dispute left behind by the father of the parties. The respondents had taken the plea that after the death of the parents of the parties a family settlement had been arrived at between them wherein valuation of the house was fixed at Rs.4.20 lacs and, thus, the share of each of 7 siblings was Rs.60,000/-. It was further pleaded that the appellant had taken his share of Rs.60,000/- and had relinquished all his claim in the property.

¶27

Both the Courts below found that the appellant had signed the agreement and had, therefore, relinquished whatever share he may had in the property in dispute.

¶28

The following questions of law have been proposed :-

¶29

“ (i) Whether a document which is alleged to have not been signed and executed each and every member of the family for distributing the property left by their father amongst all the heirs, can be called a family settlement and is liable to be relied upon ?

¶30

(ii) Whether after the death of a person, his legal heirs are not entitled to lay a claim to the extent of their respective shares in the property left by that person ?

¶31

(iii) Whether a person who flies a suit for enforcing his right to claim his share in the property left by his father can legally be estopped and whether the principle of

¶32

::3::

¶33

R.S.A No. 1746 of 2008 (O&M)

¶34

estopple is applicable against such a person ? (iv) Whether findings of the Courts below arrived at on the basis of mis-reading and mis-interpretation of the statement of the witnesses are legally sustainable ?”

¶35

It would be seen that questions No. (ii) and (iii) are general questions the answer to which would not determine the fate of this appeal. As regards question No. (i), counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that two of the sisters of the parties had not signed the family settlement and, thus, the same could not become effective.

¶36

In my opinion, this argument cannot lie in the mouth of the appellant. He admittedly signed the family settlement and also received the amount under it. He cannot now be heard to say that no family settlement had taken place. In the circumstances, it is held that the original counsel for the appellant had acted in his best interest. Question No. (iv) is a pure question of fact. Even though in the view I have taken on the merits of the case, the appeal is liable for outright dismissal yet I am not inclined to withhold the relief which has already been granted to the appellant. However, the appellant, who is present in Court and is identified by his counsel, states that he is not interested in taking the said amount.

¶37

Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court.

¶38

As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

( AJAY TEWARI )

¶40

August 04, 2010. JUDGE `kk'

¶41

R.S.A No. 1746 of 2008 (O&M) ::4::

Madan Lal Chhabra v. Kharati Lal Chhabra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal Chhabra v. Kharati Lal Chhabra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Devinder Nath Sharma and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Pargat Singh

Kulbhushan Kumar Manchanda Vs Sushil Kumar Bedi

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Surinder Mohan etc. Vs Tilak Raj etc.

Harnek Singh Vs Ameeta Walia