Delhi High Court
Nanak Chand vs Krishan Lal on 4 September, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 178/2007
NANAK CHAND ..... Appellant
Through Mr. B.V.K. Ahluwalia, Advocate
versus
KRISHAN LAL ..... Respondent
Through Mr. N.P. Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
ORDER
% 04.09.2008
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J(Oral)
1. Admit.
2. Learned counsel for the parties states that the appeal
may be heard for disposal today itself.
3. For the reasons noted hereunder, we fail to understand
the arguments in the appeal.
4. Late Shri Mannu Ram and his wife late Smt. Lilawati are
no longer in the world of living.
5. The property bearing municipal no.C-379, Dr. Ambedkar
Nagar, New Delhi came into litigation. Shri Mannu Ram and
Smt Lilawati were survived by 4 sons and 1 daughter.
6. A dispute arose qua the partition of the property. The
dispute between the children was whether Mannu Ram was the
owner or Smt. Lilawati was the owner. Little did they realized
that both parents being dead, the property would in any case
be inherited by the children and hence it did not matter
whether Lilawati was the owner or Mannu Ram was the owner
of the house.
7. It may be noted that neither sibling predicted a claim
under any will.
8. Krishan Lal a sibling i.e. 1 of the 4 sons born to Mannu
Ram and his wife Lilawati filed a suit for partition. He said that
he had 1/5th share in the property. He stated that his other
brothers and sisters as also wife and children of his pre-
deceased brother had 1/5th share in the property.
9. The appellant took up a defence that in 1988 an oral
family settlement was arrived at where under Mannu Ram
gave 30,000/- towards share of the suit property to Krishan Lal.
10. Admittedly, Mannu Ram died in October, 1987. Therefore,
learned trial Judge has, in our opinion, rightly held that where
was the question of Mannu Ram paying Rs.30,000/- to the
plaintiff in the year 1988 pursuant to an oral family settlement.
11. No evidence was led, whether documentary or by way of
conduct of the parties to show that a family settlement as
alleged was ever arrived at.
12. Learned trial Judge has accordingly passed a preliminary
decree holding that all the children of late Mannu Ram and his
wife Smt. Lilawati have 1/5th share in the suit property. The
share of the deceased son has been held to be that of the wife
and the children of deceased son.
13. In appeal, it is urged that a family settlement was arrived
at in 1988. But one being questioned as to where is the
evidence to sustain the said plea, learned counsel for the
appellant fairly conceded that there is none.
14. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal.
15. Noting that the parties come from a very humble social
economic background, we refrain from imposing any costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SUNIL GAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 04, 2008
Dkg
