Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Rejects Appeal to Amend Pleadings in Partition Suit, Affirms Binding Nature of Ancestral Decrees on Legal Heirs

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Indupal Kaur Sehgal challenging a 1976 partition decree pertaining to property A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The bench, comprising the Acting Chief Justice and Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, upheld the earlier decision of a Single Judge who had dismissed the appellant's plea for an amendment to the plaint.

The appellant, Ms. Sehgal, had sought to amend her suit to challenge the partition decree on the grounds of fraud, contending that she was unaware of its existence until recently. However, the court observed, "The Appellant herein is alleging fraud by her own common ancestor upon the civil court which passed the decree of partition dated 28.05.1976." This allegation was critical in determining the nature of the trial, differentiating it from a regular trial of partition.

The Court noted the implications of allowing such an amendment, stating, "The challenge by a legal heir to a disposition made by the common ancestor to his properties during his lifetime is adversarial and would necessarily require an independent inquiry and adjudication." The bench emphasized that the proposed amendments would alter the nature of the suit from a partition dispute to a declaration suit.

Furthermore, the Court remarked on the legal heir's right to challenge the ancestor's decisions, asserting, "A legal heir is bound by the actions of the common ancestor whose property he/she seeks to inherit and the legal heir cannot be permitted to challenge the actions of the common ancestor by alleging that he acted fraudulently."

In their conclusive decision, the bench dismissed the appeal, underscoring, "The Appellant's challenge to the 1976 decree was deemed untenable; appeal dismissed for lack of merit, maintaining Single Judge’s order." This decision reaffirms the principle that legal heirs are bound by the actions of their ancestors and cannot challenge them on allegations of fraud if they have been accepted and acted upon during the ancestor's lifetime.

Date of Decision: 01 February 2024

Indupal Kaur Sehgal VS Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Ors.

 

Similar News