Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Family Court Entertains Suit for Injunction Against Husband and Daughter from First Marriage – Himachal HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, a Family Court upheld its jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking an injunction against a husband and his daughter from his first marriage. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma, sets a precedent for similar cases involving third-party rights arising from prior settlement deeds within a marital relationship.

The case revolved around a dispute between a wife (the plaintiff) and her husband (defendant No.1), who executed a settlement/gift deed in favor of his daughter (defendant No.2) from his first marriage. The deed was executed out of love and affection to secure the future of his daughter, rather than any marital obligation.

In the judgment, Justice Sandeep Sharma noted, “Today, parties to the lis made claim that defendant No.2 has not become an absolute owner, but definitely, on account of the Rapat entered in the Rapat Rojnamcha and attestation of mutation, she can claim to have right in the property as detailed in the plaint.”

The court found that defendant No.2 already had an independent interest in the suit property before the settlement with the plaintiff. The settlement/gift deed executed by defendant No.1 was recorded in the revenue record and was not the sole basis of defendant No.2’s interest in the property.

The court further observed, “Leaving everything aside, this court finds that as per the averments contained in the plaint, defendant No.1 vide settlement/gift deed, settled part of land at Mohal Shilla in Khasra Nos. 474, 498, and 499 (kita-3) in favor of his daughter, meaning thereby interest of defendant No.2 has been created much prior to the settlement deed dated 31.8.2021.”

Addressing the issue of jurisdiction, the court ruled that the suit was not barred under Explanation (c) or (d) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, as the circumstances leading to the injunction did not arise exclusively from the marital relationship.

The court relied on previous precedents and held, “It is quite apparent from the aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of a civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.”

The court dismissed arguments attempting to transfer the suit to a family court, stating that the suit property was not exclusively owned by one of the parties to the marriage due to defendant No.2’s independent interest created earlier.

This landmark judgment clarifies the jurisdiction of family courts in cases where third-party rights are involved due to prior settlement deeds within a marital relationship. It serves as a precedent for future cases dealing with similar issues.

Date of Decision: July 21, 2023

Beverley Singh  vs Tejinder Singh And Another

Latest Legal News