Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

No Legal Bar on Plaintiff’s Claim Arising Out of Family Arrangement; Suit Requires Detailed Adjudication – P&H High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a revision petition challenging the Civil Judge’s order that denied the dismissal of a plaint in a familial property dispute. Justice Gurbir Singh upheld the lower court’s decision to allow a full trial to proceed, emphasizing that the issues presented, stemming from a complex family arrangement, necessitate a thorough examination.

The petition was filed by Arun Fotedar against an order that refused to reject a plaint filed by his brother, Dr. Jitender Fotedar, regarding the ownership and contributions toward the construction of family-owned properties. The core legal tools involved included Article 227 of the Constitution of India and provisions from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Specific Relief Act.

The dispute arose after the death of Mr. M.L. Fotedar, leaving behind property that his sons claimed different rights over, based on contributions to purchase and construction costs. The conflict intensified with the execution of a transfer deed by one brother in favor of another, which the plaintiff contested as having been done without his consent and contrary to previous familial agreements.

Cause of Action & Limitation: The court recognized a continuing cause of action based on the dynamics of the family’s decisions and the ongoing negotiations and confrontations over the property rights, especially after certain actions in 2020 that brought disagreements to the fore.

Valuation and Stamping: Justice Singh pointed out that the plaintiff had adequately valued the suit and paid the necessary court fees, considering his claim of joint possession and co-ownership.

Benami Transactions and Property Rights: The court addressed the application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and Specific Relief Act, suggesting that the plaintiff’s claim was rooted in familial agreements and mutual understandings rather than strictly legal titles, which justified his expectations of ownership recognition.

The High Court concluded that the suit was not barred by any law and that the factual complexities involved warranted a full trial. It affirmed that the plaintiff’s plea was properly placed for judicial determination regarding the extent of ownership and rights over the disputed property.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2024

Arun Fotedar vs Dr. Jitender Fotedar and another

Similar News