Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 994 (HP)

AMARJIT GUPTA v. PREM MOHINI GUPTA

2013-12-02

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT 1. APPEAL was admitted on the following substantial question of law: - "1. Whether the compromise arrived at between the parties in the earlier suit instituted by Surinder Pal, the predecessor of the appellants, affected the right of said Surinder Pal or his legal heirs to inherit the estate of his father and mother, and as such, he or his legal heirs are not entitled to inherit the estates of his (Surinder Pal's) father and mother?" 2. FACTS are not in dispute. Sh. Jagdish Chander Gupta and his wife Smt.Amarjit Gupta were owning and possessing certain properties in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Through their wedlock, two sons namely Kailash Chander Gupta, Surinder Pal Singh and three daughters namely Sarbjit Kaur, Kiranjit and Prem Mohini Gupta were born. Surinder Pal Singh filed a civil suit seeking partition of immoveable properties, claiming them to be ancestral. However, parties compromised the matter on 28.08.1986. The said suit being Civil Suit No. 20 of 1982 titled as Shri Surinder Paul Singh Gupta Versus Shri Jagdish Chander Gupta & others, was disposed of by the Court of Learned Senior Sub Judge, Shimla with the passing of following order: - "28.8.86. Present: - Sh.S.V.Sharma, Adv. with plaintiff. Sh.S.R.Sharma, Adv. with defendant No.3 and Attorney of defendant No.1 in person. Heard. Parties have settled the dispute and they have filed the compromise Ext.C/1 in the court which is admitted to be correct by the parties and it is stated to have been signed by the parties as per statement of the plaintiff and counsel for defendants and defendant No.3, Kumari Prem Mohini recorded in the court today. In terms of the compromise Ext.C/1, suit is dismissed as with drawn with no order as to costs, as having been settled outside the court. File be consigned to records. Announced. Sd/ - 28.8.86. Senior Sub Judge, Shimla." 3. IN the application incorporating terms of compromise, parties specifically made an admission that Jagdish Chander Gupta and Smt.Amarjit Kaur were exclusive owners in possession of the suit premises. Surinder Pal Singh specifically admitted that property was not ancestral in nature. However, out of free will and volition, Jagdish Chander Gupta and Amarjit Kaur transferred certain properties to Surinder Pal Singh. This was with a rider that "in future" he shall have no claim whatsoever, over any of the properties in the name of other parties including his parents. Surinder Pal Singh specifically admitted that property was not ancestral in nature. However, out of free will and volition, Jagdish Chander Gupta and Amarjit Kaur transferred certain properties to Surinder Pal Singh. This was with a rider that "in future" he shall have no claim whatsoever, over any of the properties in the name of other parties including his parents. Specifically, it was mentioned that even his legal heirs would have no interest, right or lien over the same. It is not in dispute that pursuant to this compromise, Surinder Pal Singh not only owned and possessed certain properties, but also transferred and enjoyed benefits therefrom. In fact, he sold all these properties. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY when Surinder Pal Singh started interfering with the remaining properties, Smt. Prem Mohini filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The same was partly decreed in her favour by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No.3, Shimla, H.P., vide judgment dated 18.12.2002 passed in Case No.32/1 of 97 titled as Miss Prem Mohini Gupta Versus Smt. Amarjeet Gupta & others. Learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 04.01.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.106 -S/13 of 05/03 titled as Miss Prem Mohini Gupta Versus Smt. Amarjeet Gupta & others, has decreed the suit in totality in the following terms: - "14. As a result of finding aforesaid, appeal succeeds and it is accepted. Suit of the appellant for declaration is granted that deceased Surinder Pal Singh or his LRs namely respondents No.1 to 3 have no right, title and interest in the left out properties of deceased Jagdish Chand Gupta and Amar Kaur in terms of compromise in civil suit No.282/1 of 1984 particularly compromise Ext. PW_1/F dated 28.8.86 but this declaration is subject to final out -come of probate proceedings under section 276 of Indian Sucession Act, titled Prem Mohini Versus General Public. Injunction decree already passed remained intact. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The record of the learned trial court be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment and thereafter the file of this court be consigned to record room. Announced and signed in the open court today i.e. 4th day of January, 2006. Sd/ - Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla." It is not in dispute that appellants before this Court are legal heirs of Surinder Pal Singh. 5. Announced and signed in the open court today i.e. 4th day of January, 2006. Sd/ - Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla." It is not in dispute that appellants before this Court are legal heirs of Surinder Pal Singh. 5. IT is urged on behalf of the appellants, legal heirs of Surinder Pal Singh, that pursuant to compromise dated 28.08.1986, there was another compromise entered into between the parties to the lis. To establish such fact, learned counsel has invited my attention to the judgment rendered by this Court in Prem Mohini Gupta Versus Kailash Chander Gupta and others, Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) 1079. This judgment has no bearing on the present appeal. I only notice that subject matter of both the suits is separate and distinct. In the present proceedings, no subsequent compromise stands placed or proved on record. It is only now this plea is taken. 6. IT is further submitted that appellants have a right in the estate of Smt. Amarjit Kaur. I am afraid, contention needs to be rejected for the simple reason that during her life time, Amarjit Kaur and her husband, had given immoveable properties to Surinder Pal Singh, making it abundantly clear that "in future" he would have no right, title or interest in the remaining properties. As such, intention of the parties is evidently clear. Nothing was to be given to Surinder Pal Singh out of properties which were subject matter of civil suit No.20 of 1982. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Legality of the impugned judgment cannot be questioned. The judgments rendered by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse, erroneous or illegal. Hence the present appeal is dismissed. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.