High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Delhi High Court Reinstates Key Issues in Complex Property and Adoption Dispute, Upholds Limited Scope of Cross-Examination

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Delhi reinstated two critical issues in a property dispute involving Ritu Kumar, the petitioner, and Tarun Chander Malik, the respondent. The court, under the supervision of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, reviewed the suo moto deletion of issues by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) and the disallowance of further cross-examination of the respondent regarding new documents. This significant decision, delivered on May 14, 2024, partially overturned the ADJ's order, emphasizing the relevance of certain issues to the core dispute.

Background

The case revolves around a civil suit for possession and mesne profits of a property at 68, Janpath, New Delhi. The dispute is rooted in family and adoption claims dating back several decades. The respondent, Tarun Chander Malik, claims ownership of the property through a will bequeathed by his adoptive father, late Sh. Tara Chand Malik, and his wife, Smt. Bhagwanti Devi. This adoption and the subsequent property rights are contested by the petitioner, Ritu Kumar, who argues that the property was subject to an oral family settlement and disputes the adoption itself.

Key Points of the Judgment

Reinstatement of Issues: The High Court reinstated issues concerning the nature of the property and the adoption status of the respondent, recognizing their critical role in resolving the dispute. Specifically, issues regarding whether the property was self-acquired or part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and whether the respondent was indeed the adopted son were reinstated.

Disallowance of Further Cross-Examination: The court upheld the ADJ's decision to deny further cross-examination of the respondent on additional documents. These documents, including a will and a probate order, were deemed irrelevant to the core issues at hand.

Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227: The court clarified its supervisory role under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing its duty to correct grave errors rather than reassess factual matters.

Court Observations and Analysis

Justice Shalinder Kaur provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles applied. The judgment emphasized the importance of issues that directly affect the determination of rights between the parties. The court found that the deletion of issues by the ADJ without proper basis was a significant error.

The court explained that the adoption and property characterization issues were essential for the fair adjudication of the case. Without these issues, the petitioner's defense was severely hampered. On the matter of further cross-examination, the court agreed with the ADJ's reasoning that the additional documents did not necessitate recalling the respondent for further testimony, as the documents were not directly relevant to the main issues.

Conclusion The judgment underscores the High Court's commitment to ensuring justice through thorough consideration of relevant issues. By reinstating crucial issues, the court has paved the way for a more comprehensive examination of the facts. This decision is likely to have significant implications for the parties involved and may lead to further legal actions or appeals.

 

Date of Decision: May 14, 2024

Ritu Kumar vs. Tarun Chander Malik & Anr

Similar News