Dismissed

Kirti Sharma and Anr. v. Dinesh Sharma and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2019RSA/4113/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two appeals challenging property transactions. It held that a family settlement between the appellant and a respondent does not bind subsequent bona fide purchasers. The court affirmed that the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge valid sale deeds executed before her purported acquisition of rights.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; no declaration of voidness granted; no injunction issued.

Kirti Sharma and Anr. Vs Dinesh Sharma and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

RSA No. 4113 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. RSA No. 4113 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.01.2019 Kirti Sharma and another ....Appellants Versus Dinesh Sharma and others ....Respondents 2. RSA No. 467 of 2017 (O&M) Kirti Sharma ....Appellant Versus

¶5

Pushpa and others

¶6

....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶8

Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the appellants in both the appeals.

¶9

Mr. Rajpal Singh Chauhan, Advocate for respondent no. 2 in RSA-4113-2013.

¶10

Surinder Gupta, J.

¶11

RSA No. 467 of 2017

¶12

Appellant-Kirti Sharma filed suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as follows:-

¶13

“.........that the sale deed bearing no. 11326 dated 04.01.2005 executed by Hari Mittal Aggarwal in favour of Santosh Kumar Sharma i.e. defendant no. 3 and the sale deed no. 2674 dated 30.04.2008 executed by Santosh Kumar in favour of defendant no. 1 are totally null and void, sham documents and liable to be cancelled and the defendants and their attorneys, authorized representatives and agents

¶14

JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.30 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

RSA No. 4113 of 2013

¶16

-2-

¶17

may kindly be restrained from encroaching upon the suit property and be also restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff and her family members forcibly and a decree of declaration and as a consequential relief of a permanent injunction may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.”

¶18

Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad declined the relief of declaration as sought by the plaintiff. However, the suit was partly decreed to restrain the defendants from interfering into possession of plaintiff over the suit property except in due course of law. In appeal filed by respondent no. 1-Pushpa (in RSA-467-2017) purchaser of the suit property, judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad was set aside and suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Hari Mittal Aggarwal was original owner of the suit property bearing no. 727, Sector 21-A, Faridabad. He executed a power of attorney and Will dated 29.08.1996 pertaining to this house in favour of K.K. Sharma, husband of appellant, then on 04.01.2005 executed a sale deed of the disputed house in favour of S.K. Sharma (not a party to the suit), who is father of K.K. Sharma and father-in-law of plaintiff-appellant (Kirti Sharma). K.K. Sharma being attorney of Hari Mittal Aggarwal also executed sale deed dated 13.01.2006 of the disputed house in favour of plaintiff-appellant (his wife). S.K. Sharma sold the suit property vide sale deed dated 30.04.2008 to defendant-respondent no. 2-Madhu Bala (in RSA-467-

¶20

JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.30 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

RSA No. 4113 of 2013

¶22

-3-

¶23

2017).

¶24

Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad observed that firstly sale deed dated 13.01.2006 executed in favour of plaintiffappellant was not produced on file and even if any such sale deed was executed, the same was not valid document in view of execution of sale deed dated 04.01.2005 by owner of the suit property in favour of S.K. Sharma. Keeping in view the fact that none of the defendant had appeared in the witness-box, statement of plaintiff-appellant that she is in possession of the suit property was relied and the relief of permanent injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in possession of plaintiff except in due course of law was allowed.

¶25

Ist Appellate Court took note of the fact that possession of the suit property was delivered to Madhu Bala at the time of execution of sale deed dated 30.04.2008 and she became owner of the suit property. Even otherwise, plaintiff-appellant has no locus standi to claim possession over the suit property, which was alleged to be owned by S.K. Sharma, her father-in-law, as per sale deed dated 04.01.2005.

¶26

In connected appeal, which also pertains to suit property (RSA-4113-2013), learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 have admitted that as per sale deed dated 04.01.2005, S.K. Sharma was owner of the suit property. However, under a family settlement, suit property has been given to K.K. Sharma, husband of plaintiff-appellant (Kirti Sharma) and ownership of K.K. Sharma has also been recorded in the record of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).

¶27

JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.30 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

RSA No. 4113 of 2013 -4-

¶29

Learned counsel for appellants in both the cases is the same and if submission of learned counsel for the appellant in RSA-4113-2013 be believed, appellant-Kirti Sharma has no concern with the suit property whatsoever. At the most her husband can come up to claim possession of the suit property.

¶30

It has also been argued that sale deed executed by S.K. Sharma in favour of Madhu Bala was set aside in civil suit filed by K.K. Sharma and application seeking setting aside of ex parte decree filed by Madhu Bala is pending.

¶31

Once it is admitted that sale deed dated 13.01.2006 in favour of husband of appellant-Kirti Sharma is not a valid document, he or appellant are conferred with no right, title and interest with regard to suit property, as such, Ist Appellate Court committed no error while declining plaintiff the relief of injunction as sought by her. I find no merit in the appeal (RSA-467-2017) filed by Kirti Sharma, calling for any interference in the judgment passed by Ist Appellate Court.

¶32

RSA-4113-2013

¶33

Kirti Sharma and K.K. Sharma filed suit seeking the relief of declaration that sale deed dated 04.01.2005 executed in favour S.K. Sharma, father of plaintiff-appellant (K.K. Sharma), is illegal, null and void. During course of arguments it has, however, been conceded that sale deed dated 04.01.2005 regarding the suit property executed by Hari Mittal Aggarwal, the original owner, in favour of S.K. Sharma has preceded sale deed dated 13.01.2006, executed by K.K. Sharma as attorney of Hari Mittal Aggarwal in favour of his wife Kirti Sharma, as

¶34

JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.30 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

RSA No. 4113 of 2013

¶36

-5-

¶37

such, sale deed in favour of S.K. Sharma is a valid document.

¶38

At this stage, learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent no. 2-S.K. Sharma (in RSA-4113-2013) have submitted that during pendency of this appeal the matter has been amicably settled with S.K. Sharma, who has conferred title of the suit property in favour of K.K. Sharma (appellant no. 2) and transfer of suit property in favour of K.K. Sharma has also been reflected in the record of HUDA. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties the appeal filed by appellants be allowed.

¶39

The settlement in between K.K. Sharma (appellant) and respondent no. 2-S.K. Sharma, if any, is not binding on the other parties to the suit. The same binds the parties to settlement only and in particular has no effect on the alienation made by S.K. Sharma to Madhu Bala and subsequent alienation made by Madhu Bala. Even as per settlement, if any, sale deed executed by S.K. Sharma dated 30.04.2008, cannot be declared as illegal, null and void. After execution of this sale deed S.K. Sharma was left with no right, title or interest in the suit property entitling him to settle the same with his son K.K. Sharma.

¶40

As a sequel of my above discussion, the appeal (RSA-4672017) filed by Kirti Sharma has no merit and the same is dismissed.

¶41

In appeal (RSA-4113-2013) though, appellants and respondent no. 2 have alleged settlement regarding the suit property but the same will bind the parties to the settlement and will not effect the right of Madhu Bala, who purchased the suit property and her subsequent

¶42

JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.30 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶43

-6-

¶44

RSA No. 4113 of 2013

¶45

vendee. Sale deed dated 04.01.2005 is admitted to be a valid document and appellant no. 2-K.K. Sharma alleged to have derived right qua this property from his father S.K. Sharma on the basis of above sale deed. Consequently, he looses right to seek declaration that this sale deed is illegal, null and void. This appeal also has no merit and the same is dismissed.

¶46

January 09, 2019 ( SURINDER GUPTA) jk JUDGE

¶47

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶48

JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.30 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Kirti Sharma and Anr. v. Dinesh Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirti Sharma and Anr. v. Dinesh Sharma 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

Rajinder Kumar Vs Veena Kukar and Anr.

Sukhwant Singh Vs State of Haryana

Charanjit Kaur Vs Ravinder Kaur and Anr.

Gurmit Singh & Ors. Vs Prem Singh

Raj Pal Vs Gurjant Singh and Anr.

Kirti Sharma Vs Pushpa & Ors.