MANMOHAN SINGH AHUJA vs MAHINDER SINGH AHUJA AND ORS
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th April, 2024
+ CS(OS) 696/2022 & I.A. 18352/2022, 3623/2023, 14163/2023, 17397/2023, 8262/2024
MANMOHAN SINGH AHUJA ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. T.L. Saxena, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advs. (M:9911000672).
versus
MAHINDER SINGH AHUJA AND ORS ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Shashi Shanker, Ms. Swati, Ms. Sugandha Chhibber and Ms. Pooja Mohanani, Advs (M:7291033160).
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A. 8262/2024 (for delay)
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing rejoinder. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned application is disposed of.
I.A. 3623/2023 (u/O VII R 11 CPC) & I.A. 18352/2022 (u/O. XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPC)
3. There is an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Defendants, and the stay application under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPC, is also listed for hearing.
4. Vide order 11th November, 2022, status quo order, in respect of the suit properties mentioned at paragraph 2 of the plaint, was passed in I.A. 18352/2022, in the following terms:
15. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of partition and other ancillary reliefs in respect of properties detailed in paragraph 2 of the plaint.
16. It is the case of the plaintiff that the aforesaid properties belong to father of the plaintiff, late Sh. Attar Singh Ahuja, who expired intestate on 25th January, 2014. A legal notice dated 30th December, 2016 was sent on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants. Plaintiff claims 1/5th share in the suit properties.
17. A civil suit for partition, being CS No.741/2017, was filed before the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. In the said suit, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants and taking into account the written statement so filed, an interim injunction was granted on 16th December, 2021 by the ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The said suit was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff on the ground that the District Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the case. The suit was withdrawn with liberty to file the same before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. Hence, the present suit has been filed before this Court.
18. Issue notice.
19. Notice is accepted on behalf of the counsel for defendants no. 1, 5, 6 and 8.
20. Notice be issued to the remaining defendants through all modes.
21. Reply(ies) be filed within four weeks.
22. Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
23. A prima facie case is made out on behalf of the plaintiff. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, status quo with regard to title and possession shall be maintained by the parties in respect of the suit properties mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint.
5. The ground raised by the Defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is that the Plaintiff is not in possession of any portion of the suit property. Thus, the Plaintiff is also liable to pay Court Fee in respect of the valuation of the entire properties as stated in the plaint.
6. In addition, ld. Counsel for the Defendants points out that an MOU dated 4th April, 2019 was executed between the parties, where the Plaintiff clearly acknowledged that the Plaintiff does not have any right. However, only in order to avoid litigation and further harassment, the Defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs, out of which Rs. 2 lakhs had been already paid. As recorded therein, only a balance of Rs.18 lakhs was to be paid. Thus, it is prayed that the status quo order be vacated, in view of the said MOU.
7. On behalf of the Plaintiff, it is submitted that the Plaintiff had initially filed a suit before the ld. ADJ-13 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi being Suit No. 741/17 titled Manmohan Singh Ahuja v. Rajinder Kaur. However, due to the valuation of the suit property, the suit was filed before this Court and the said suit before the ld. ADJ-13 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was withdrawn.
8. Insofar as the MOU is concerned, the statements of the Plaintiff and his son i.e. Man Mohan Singh and Joginder Singh have been recorded today. The said statements are extracted below:-
Statement of Man Mohan Singh
A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter, MoU) dated 4th April, 2019 has been shown to me and I confirm that the said MoU has my photograph, my wifes photograph, and my sons photograph.
I also confirm that I have signed each and every page of the MoU. I also confirm that my wife and my son have also signed each page of the MoU.
This MoU was entered into amongst us (aapas mein) i.e., with my brothers. I had not read the document before signing it. I was made to sign it without reading.
I have studied and passed 10th Standard.
Statement of Joginder Singh
I confirm that I have signed the Memorandum of Understanding dated 4th April, 2019. My photograph is also affixed on the said MoU.
I had signed the documents on the representation made by my cousin-Mr. Gurmeet Singh, to the effect that these papers are required to be signed by me for some legal cases. I have studied till 6th Standard.
9. As can be seen from the above statements, the Plaintiff does not dispute signing the said MOU. The only apparent stand, which is also vague, is that the Defendants and the cousin brother coerced the Plaintiff and his son into signing the said MOU.
10. Heard. The Court has considered the MOU. The said MOU is categorical that out of the ten properties, two properties are tenanted. The ownership of each of the properties and in whom they vest, is also described in the said MOU which reads as under:-
Clauses 1 &2 of the MOU
1. That the second party including their legal heir and representative in any form shall not have any right/title and/or claim over any of the properties of the First Party in general and in the properties as specifically mentioned hereinabove in para 2.
2. That just avoid litigation and further harassment, the First Party have decided to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.20 lacs to the Second Party however, out of the said Rs.20 Lacs, a sum of Rs 2 Lacs has already been paid by the first party to the second party. The balance amount of Rs.18 Lacs shall be paid by the first party to the second party only after sale of property bearing no. B-2B-806, Punjab Mata Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab. The Second Party undertakes to withdraw all their cases and complaints whether civil or criminal from the jurisdiction of Delhi, Ludhiana and any other places where they might have filed against the First Party and/or any person whose name appears as part of first party. The second party shall not claim any right in any of the properties as mentioned in para no.1 hereinabove and in any other properties which are in the possession of the First party and the matter is settled fully and finally.
11. The above MOU clearly acknowledges the payment of Rs.2 lakhs to the Plaintiff. Only Rs.18 lakhs remains to be paid. Admittedly, the said amount has not been paid, as it is the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff tried to resile from the said MOU.
12. In the opinion of this Court, the MOU which has been signed by the following parties is in the nature of a family settlement, and deserves to be given recognition as such. The settled legal position in respect of family settlements including in the decision of the Supreme Court in Kale. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976 INSC 6) and the subsequent decisions is that the family settlements have to be recognized without going into the technicalities.
13. In Kale & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 807, the Supreme Court has underscored the importance of family settlements in resolving disputes over property within a family. Courts ought to lean in favour of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds. In the said judgement, the Apex Court highlighted the recognition of such family settlements as a practical mechanism to maintain harmony and reduce litigation within families, while also laying down guidelines for their validity and enforceability. The Supreme Court reinforced the binding nature of family settlements on the parties involved, stating that once a family settlement is arrived at, it should be held sacrosanct, and parties should be dissuaded from attempting to alter it, ensuring stability and certainty in family arrangements. The relevant extracts of the said judgement are set out below:
9. Before dealing with the respective contentions put forward by the parties, we would like to discuss in general the effect and value of family arrangements entered into between the parties with a view to resolving disputes once for all. By virtue of a family settlement or arrangement members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family. The family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves and would be enforced if honestly made. In this connection, Kerr in his valuable treatise Kerr on Fraud at p. 364 makes the following pertinent observations regarding the nature of the family arrangement which may be extracted thus:
The principles which apply to the case of ordinary compromise between strangers do not equally apply to the case of compromises in the nature of family arrangements. Family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves, and will be enforced if honestly made, although they have not been meant as a compromise, but have proceeded from an error of all parties, originating in mistake or ignorance of fact as to what their rights actually are, or of the points on which their rights actually depend.
The object of the arrangement is to protect the family from long-drawn litigation or perpetual strifes which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family. Today when we are striving to build up an egalitarian society and are trying for a complete reconstruction of the society, to maintain and uphold the unity and homogeneity of the family which ultimately results in the unification of the society and, therefore, of the entire country, is the prime need of the hour. A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the various contenders so as to achieve an equal distribution of wealth instead of concentrating the same in the hands of a few is undoubtedly a milestone in the administration of social justice. That is why the term family has to be understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes successionis so that future disputes are sealed for ever and the family instead of fighting claims inter se and wasting time, money and energy on such fruitless or futile litigation is able to devote its attention to more constructive work in the larger interest of the country. The courts have, therefore, leaned in favour of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds. Where the courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or a formal defect the rule of estoppel is pressed into service and is applied to shut out plea of the person who being a party to family arrangement seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself enjoyed some material benefits. The law in England on this point is almost the same. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 17, Third Edition, at pp. 215-216, the following apt observations regarding the essentials of the family settlement and the principles governing the existence of the same are made:
A family arrangement is an agreement between members of the same family, intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honour.
The agreement may be implied from a long course of dealing, but it is more usual to embody or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which the term family arrangement is applied.
Family arrangements are governed by principles which are not applicable to dealings between strangers. The court, when deciding the rights of parties under family arrangements or claims to upset such arrangements, considers what in the broadest view of the matter is most for the interest of families, and has regard to considerations which, in dealing with transactions between persons not members of the same family, would not be taken into account. Matters which would be fatal to the validity of similar transactions between strangers are not objections to the binding effect of family arrangements.
10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions:
(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family;
(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence;
(3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary;
(4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable;
(5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same;
(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement.
14. In a recent judgement in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors., (2019 INSC 869), the Supreme Court revisited Kale (supra), emphasising the formal recognition of efforts to restore peace and maintain familial bonds. The essence of these arrangements is to preserve familial bonds, averting animosity and fostering goodwill among kin. Further, the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of harmony and collective well-being over individual disputes. The relevant extracts of the said judgement are set out below:
16. Be that as it may, the High Court has clearly misapplied the dictum in the relied upon decisions. The settled legal position is that when by virtue of a family settlement or arrangement, members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once and for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family, such arrangement ought to be governed by a special equity peculiar to them and would be enforced if honestly made. The object of such arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strives which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family, as observed in Kale (supra)
15. Under Clause 2 of the MOU, i.e. the description of the property, the Plaintiff acknowledges that he does not have any ownership rights in any of the property. The Plaintiff, his wife and son have all signed the MOU. Thus, they cannot be permitted to resile from the same.
16. Considering this position and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kale (supra) and Ravinder Kaur Grewal (supra), the status quo order dated 11th November, 2022, shall stand vacated. However, since the present suit is pending and there is some allegation of coercion and duress, the Defendants shall deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs with the worthy Registrar General of this Court within a period of six weeks. The same shall be kept in an FDR on auto renewal mode.
17. If the said amount is deposited, then the Defendants are free to deal with the suit properties mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint.
18. The applications are disposed of.
CS(OS) 696/2022 & I.A. Nos.14163/2023 & 17397/2023
19. Issue notice in both these applications. Let replies be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, thereto, be filed within four weeks.
20. List before the Joint Registrar on 9th July, 2024.
21. List before the Court on 9th September, 2024.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
APRIL 26, 2024
A/dn
CS(OS) 696/2022 Page 2 of 2