Property Received by Owner By Way of Family Settlement Not Ancestral in Nature: Delhi HC Highlights Characteristics Of Ancestral & Inherited Property
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court explained the characteristics of ancestral & inherited property and further clarified that the suit property can't be held to be an ancestral property when the same was received by the erstwhile owner by way of a family settlement, wherein, the two brothers divided two equally measuring plots between themselves.
The appeal, before the High Court, was preferred against the judgment of the ADJ whereby the judgment by the Trial Court, decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, mandatory and permanent injunction and recovery of damages/mesne profits, had been affirmed.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav asserted, “By definition, an ancestral property is a coparcenary property, where "coparceners" are legal heirs with an inherent interest in the property from birth. Such properties remain undivided within joint families, with legal heirs enjoying their shares.”
Advocate Ashok Gurnani represented the Appellant while Advocate Rajendra Kumar represented the Respondent.
The case revolved around the respondent/plaintiff and appellant/defendant, who are real brothers and sisters. The respondent/plaintiff is a widow and resides with her father and son at the suit property. The father Bharat Singh had allocated certain plots to each of his four sons, including the appellant/defendant, where they constructed their houses and lived with their families. The suit property had devolved on the grandfather of the contesting parties based on a family settlement that took place between him and his brother. Therefore, the same became a separate property owned by him which later, on his death, was inherited by the father of the contesting parties namely Bharat Singh.
Due to being neglected by his sons, the father moved into the suit property with the respondent/plaintiff and her son and thereafter he sold the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff through a GPA, Agreement-to-Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Letter of Possession, and Will.
The respondent/plaintiff alleged that the appellant/defendant is an alcoholic who created disturbances and threatened to commit suicide. Numerous police complaints were lodged against him. In the plaint, certain averments regarding the fabrication of documents in the father's name and the filing of frivolous lawsuits against the respondent/plaintiff were also made.
The respondent/plaintiff drew attention to a particular event wherein, the appellant/defendant unlawfully placed his locks on two inter-connected rooms on the first floor and dumped his rusty belongings there, forcibly removing the respondent/plaintiff's possessions during the night. The respondent/plaintiff requested the appellant/defendant to remove his articles and restored the possession of rooms to her, but he refused, despite her being the rightful owner of the suit property.
Thereby, being dispossessed, the plaintiff preferred the suit for recovery of possession. The Trial Court concluded that the suit property was not a coparcenary property. Consequently, it ruled in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, validating the sale deed executed by her father and transferring the property to her. When the matter reached the first Appellate Court, the Trial Court order was upheld.
The appellant/defendant contended that the very nature of the suit property being an ancestral property, the same could not have been alienated by the execution of a sale deed by the father in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the Courts below erred in not considering this aspect before deciding the matter.
The primary controversy appeared to be about the ancestral nature of the suit property and how ancestral property is distinguishable from inherited property.
“Conversely, a property obtained through inheritance, whether by way of a will or upon the demise of the property owner, is classified as inherited property. The inheritor holds exclusive ownership over the said property, and is entitled to freely transfer, sell, or dispose of it at their discretion. There are no claims based on birthright, with ownership being governed by the legal owner's directives, will, or the applicable succession laws. The interest of a legal heir in inherited property is not established at birth, as with ancestral property. Rather, it is formally conferred through a testamentary will or agreement”, the Bench held.
As per the Bench, a legal heir can even be disqualified as a successor. The property owner holds absolute authority over designating their successor and setting the conditions for such succession.
“It is, thus, clear from the factual background of the case at hand that the suit property could not have been held to be an ancestral property, as the same was received by the erstwhile owner, Sh. Bharat Singh, by way of a family settlement, wherein, the two brothers divided two equally measuring plots between themselves. Hence, the property could not have been said to be delved on the father by virtue of him being a coparcener in that property. The Courts below have rightly laid down the distinct position of the suit property from that of an ancestral property. Therefore, the Court does not find any error in the decisions of the Courts below and refrains from interfering with the same”, the Bench said.
The High Court also made it clear that Section 100 of the CPC confers a limited jurisdiction on the High Court to deal only with any legal error apparent on the face of the record.
The Bench concluded the matter by observing, “Since there arises no substantial question of law to be adjudicated in view of the aforesaid, the appeal stands dismissed alongwith pending application(s). No order as to costs.”
Cause Title: Shri Birbal Saini v. Smt. Satywati (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:10044)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Ashok Gurnani, Manish Aggarwal, Barnali Paul, Hardikaa Kalia and Abhishek Singh
Respondent: Advocate Rajendra Kumar