Delhi High Court Addresses Inheritance Issues in Property Dispute

The recent judgement in MRS. KUSUM TANEJA Vs. SHRI MANIK TANEJA AND OTHERS CS (OS) 174/2018, presided over by Justice Navin Chawla, sheds light on several crucial issues surrounding inheritance, property rights, and the legal implications of wills. This case involved complex family dynamics, where the ownership and division of a property originally bequeathed by late Sh. Lakhmi Chand Taneja came into dispute.

Facts

The partition suit concerns a property located at Plot No. FA-53 (Old) (New No. F-305), Mansarovar Garden, measuring 148.5 square yards. The Plaintiff, the widow of late Shri Avinash Kumar Taneja, is seeking a decree to partition this property while also demanding a rendition of accounts against the first Defendant for benefits received from it.

The Plaintiff is contesting the case against her two sons (Defendants 1 and 2) and the children of late Smt. Parbati (Defendants 3 and 4), who claim a half share in the property. The property was originally purchased by late Shri Lakhmi Chand Taneja in 1960, with a registered sale deed executed in 1972 and a will was drawn up in 1970 that bequeathed the property equally to his daughter Smt. Parbati and Shri Avinash Kumar Taneja. Following the deaths of both Lakhmi Chand Taneja and Avinash Kumar Taneja, the latter’s widow and two sons became the legal heirs.

The Plaintiff claims that an oral partition occurred between late Smt. Parbati and late Shri Avinash Kumar Taneja, leading to the construction of separate structures on their respective shares. However, after Smt. Parbati passed away in 2005, her children (Defendants 3 and 4) contended that no formal partition had taken place.

The Plaintiff asserts that since Avinash Kumar Taneja’s death, Defendant No. 1 has been managing the property, renting it out for business purposes without accounting for the rental income. After the Plaintiff sent a Legal Notice in January 2018 requesting a formal partition, which was denied by Defendant No. 1, the current suit ensued.

In response, Defendants 3 and 4 filed a counterclaim, arguing that no formal partition occurred between their Mother and late Avinash Kumar Taneja and that their claims are supported by familial agreements rather than legal documentation.

Judgment

The Court framed six pivotal issues for adjudication, focusing on the existence of an oral partition, the ownership of the property, the respective shares of the parties, and the request for rendition of accounts against Defendant No. 1. The issues were decided as follows:

1. Whether an oral partition existed between late Sh. Avinash Kumar Taneja and Smt. Parbati concerning the suit property.

The Court finds that there was no oral partition of the suit property between late Sh. Avinash Kumar Taneja and late Smt. Parbati. This issue is thus decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendant No. 3. The absence of evidence supporting the existence of such a partition indicates that the property remained undivided, and both parties retain claims as legal heirs.

 

2. Whether Defendant No. 3 holds a ½ undivided shares in the suit property.

The Court determines that Defendant No. 3 is the owner of a ½ undivided share in the suit property, thereby deciding this issue in favour of Defendant No. 3 and against the Plaintiff. This conclusion is based on the relinquishment of rights as established during the proceedings, reinforcing Defendant No. 3’s entitlement to half of the property.

 

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a 1/6th share or a 1/3rd share of the property.

On the matter of the Plaintiff’s ownership, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff is entitled to a 1/6th undivided share in the suit property. This finding addresses the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding her ownership stake, confirming that her claim of a 1/3rd share in a specific portion of the property is unfounded.

4. Determining if the suit property is liable to be partitioned and the respective shares of the parties involved.

The Court holds that the suit property is liable to be partitioned. It establishes that the shares are to be divided such that the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1, and Defendant No. 2 each hold a 1/6th share, while Defendant No. 3 possesses a ½ share. This decision underscores the necessity for a formal partition of the property, in line with the shares determined by the Court.

5. Decree of Rendition of Accounts against Defendant No. 1

Innlight of the evidence presented, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of accounts and profits against Defendant No. 1, starting from the date of the legal notice dated January 23, 2018. The Court clarifies that until the legal notice was served, Defendant No. 1 was within his rights as a co-owner to benefit from the profits of the property. However, upon the Plaintiff’s formal request for partition, Defendant No. 1 became obligated to account for the profits accrued from the property, as the exclusive enjoyment of those profits could no longer be justified.

Consequently, the Court passed a preliminary decree of partition, allocating shares in the specified ratios among the parties involved. The findings indicate that there was no oral partition between Late Sh. Avinash Kumar Taneja and Late Smt. Parbati, resulting in a ruling against the Plaintiff on this point. The Court finds that Defendant No. 3 is the rightful owner of a ½ share in the suit property, while the Plaintiff is entitled to a 1/6th undivided share. Additionally, it has been established that the suit property is subject to partition, with the shares of the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1, and Defendant No. 2 each being 1/6th, and Defendant No. 3 holding a ½ share. The Plaintiff is also entitled to a decree for rendition of accounts against Defendant No. 1, requiring disclosure of rental income since January 23, 2018, with obligations to distribute the profits accordingly. The Court directs that the parties must jointly agree on the property division within eight weeks; otherwise, either party may pursue execution of the decree. The Plaintiff is awarded costs against Defendant No. 1.

Conclusion

This judgement facilitates a fair resolution to the dispute over the suit property located at Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi. By affirming the ownership shares and directing the parties to work collaboratively towards partition, the Court aims to promote equity and minimise further conflict. The requirement for Defendant No. 1 to account for rental income ensures that all parties receive their fair share of benefits derived from the property. Ultimately, this decision underlines the importance of legal clarity in property ownership and establishes a framework for resolving any future disputes amicably. The ruling serves to protect the rights of all parties involved while providing a structured pathway for the execution of the decree.

 

Shikha

Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services