Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court A Will Must Be Proved as Per Law, Even If Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Decree Justice Must Not Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Expediency: Punjab & Haryana High Court Partially Allows CBI’s Plea to Summon Crucial Witnesses in High-Profile Bribery Case Victim Must Be Heard Before Granting Bail Under SC/ST Act: Rajasthan High Court Directs Police to Ensure Proper Notification A Party Cannot Approve and Disapprove the Same Claim in a Legal Proceeding: Orissa High Court Suspicion of Tax Evasion Justifies GST Confiscation Proceedings: Madras High Court Rejects Mukti Gold's Challenge Custodial Interrogation Not Necessary When Accused Cooperates; Personal Liberty Must Be Protected: Kerala High Court Directors Are Not Personal Guarantors of Company Debt: Delhi High Court Dismisses Suit Against Company Directors Mere Relationship with the Deceased Does Not Render a Witness Unreliable: Calcutta High Court Affirms Life Sentence for Brutal Murder Once a Property is Attached, Any Subsequent Sale is Legally Void Against the Decree-Holder: Andhra High Court Upholds Creditor’s Rights A Necessary Party Must Be Present for Complete Adjudication: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Rent Controller’s Order No Interest on Delayed Gratuity If Employee Had Outstanding Dues: Orissa High Court Dismisses Claim Pension is a Right, Not a Charity: Supreme Court Slams West Bengal Government for Denying Benefits Without Inquiry Land Cannot Be Reserved Indefinitely Without Acquisition: Supreme Court Strikes Down 33-Year-Old Reservation in Maharashtra Failure to Disclose Every Policy Is Not a Fraud: Supreme Court Orders Insurance Payout in Favor of Policyholder's Son Judicial Decisions Are Not Immune from Disciplinary Proceedings:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Inquiry Against Judicial Officer

Admissions in Court Hold Greater Sanctity: Punjab and Haryana High Court Reinforces Validity of Family Settlements

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Court's landmark decision clarifies the distinction between self-acquired and joint Hindu family property in prolonged legal dispute.

In a significant judgment delivered on July 1, 2024, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh reinstated the trial court's decision in a protracted family property dispute. The case, involving the heirs of Mehar Chand, hinged on the classification of property as self-acquired versus joint Hindu family property. The ruling emphasizes the importance of admissions in court and the validity of family settlements recognized through consent decrees.

The appellants, Jai Narain (deceased) through his legal representatives, and Dal Chand, had initially filed a suit claiming ownership of a 3 Bighas, 16 Biswas, and 5 Biswansi land based on an oral family settlement. A consent decree was passed in their favor in 1977 by the Civil Court with the consent of their father, Mehar Chand, who died in 1978. The subsequent suit in 1980 sought a declaration of ownership based on the earlier decree. The defendants, including Sultan (deceased) through his legal representatives, contested the decree, alleging it was fraudulent and did not comply with the required legal formalities.

The High Court underscored the legitimacy of family settlements in resolving disputes. "The concept of the family settlement and the decrees passed acknowledging the family settlement is no new," Justice Anil Kshetrapal observed, referencing precedents that validate family settlements based on antecedent titles among family members.

A pivotal aspect of the judgment was the classification of the disputed property. Despite earlier claims that the land was joint Hindu family property, the court recognized it as self-acquired based on Sultan's admission that Mehar Chand purchased it with his own funds. "The property was not joint Hindu family property but self-acquired," the court noted, rejecting the appellate court's earlier interpretation.

The court stressed the weight of admissions made in court, particularly those by Sultan Singh, who acknowledged the property as self-acquired. "There cannot be any better evidence than the admission of the defendant," the court remarked, emphasizing that such admissions hold greater sanctity than mere pleadings.

Addressing concerns about the consent decree, the court reaffirmed its validity. "Consent decrees acknowledging family settlement are not new and do not necessarily require registration unless in writing," the judgment stated, citing the Supreme Court’s stance on the matter. The court also dismissed the notion that the previous suit was collusive, affirming that admissions in civil procedures are a recognized mode of judgment.

The judgment meticulously dissected the principles governing family property and consent decrees. It cited landmark Supreme Court rulings to establish that a possible claim or semblance of claim suffices for a valid family settlement. The court also clarified that consent decrees, unless proved fraudulent or obtained under coercion, are as enforceable as any contested decree.

Justice Kshetrapal emphasized, "The admission of the defendant that the suit property was purchased by Sh. Mehar Chand with his own money nullifies any claim of joint Hindu family property." He further remarked, "The previous suit was not collusive; the consent or admission of the plaintiff's claim is legitimate under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."

The High Court's decision reinstating the trial court's decree serves as a crucial precedent in family property disputes, particularly in distinguishing self-acquired from joint family property based on clear admissions. This judgment is expected to streamline similar disputes by reinforcing the validity of family settlements and consent decrees in the legal framework.

 

Date of Decision: July 1, 2024

Jai Narain (deceased) through his Lrs and another vs. Sultan (deceased) through his Lrs and others

Similar News