Notably, this finding of fact has not been disturbed by the High Court. The contesting respondents have reiterated the stand that there was no family settlement in 1970, as stated by the plaintiff and that the signature of the defendant No. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned trial court is modified and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. 30. Bibi Aziman vs. Mst. ..." This view of mine finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Chand (dead) through LRs v. Dharampal Singh Baba, 2007 (4) Herald (SC) 3028, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that the family settlement could only be if one has lawful right over the property and then alone family settlement could be executed. In view of this proposition of law if the matter is considered, the question of law, as framed, has to be answered in favour of the appellants. Resultantly, it was not required to be registered and in any case, keeping in mind the settled legal position, the contesting defendants were estopped from resiling from the stated arrangement in the subject memorandum, which had recorded the settlement terms arrived at in the past and even acted upon relating to all the existing or future disputes qua the subject property amongst the (signatories) family members despite absence of antecedent title to the concerned property. Sohan Bibi, AIR 1914 PC 44, Sahu Madho Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481, Ram Charan Das v. Girjanandini Devi, AIR 1966 SC 323, Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil, AIR 1966 SC 292, Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham, AIR 1966 SC 1836, Krishna Biharilal v. Gulabchand, (1971) 1 SCC 837, S. Shanmugam Pillai v. K. Shanmugam Pillai, (1973) 2 SCC 312, Sitala Baksh Singh v. Jang Bahadur Singh, AIR 1933 Oudh 347, Mst. Ravinder Kaur Grewal Ors. 4. Filmography. It is stated that in the year 1970 after the purchase of suit land, some dispute arose between the brothers regarding the suit land and in a family settlement arrived at then, it was clearly understood that the plaintiff - Harbans Singh would be the owner of the suit property including constructions thereon and that the name of Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. In view of my discussion on various issues above, the suit of the plaintiff partly succeeds and partly fails. In the said reported decision, a threeJudge Bench of this Court had observed thus: ” 9…… 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. Further, although the ownership of the suit property recorded in Jamabandi is of concerned defendant, Harbans Singh (plaintiff) had constructed 16 shops, samadhi of his wife – Gurcharan Kaur and a boundary wall on the property and was in possession thereof. Ravinder Kaur Bhangu was murderd Thursday, July 28, 2011 while working at the Sach Di Awaaz newspaper in Surrey, B.C. Again, in paragraph 24, this Court restated that a family arrangement being binding on the parties, clearly operates as an estoppel, so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same. Before :- A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. 2) as owners, whereas the name of Harbans Singh (plaintiff) is shown against khasra No. On the other hand, the evidence on record clearly established that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. 1) came to be allowed by answering the substantial question of law formulated as under: ” Whether the document Ex.P6 required registration as by way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/was transferred in favour of the plaintiff?”. Ravinder Kaur Grewal Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 658 The High Court then adverted to a decision of the same High Court in Jagdish & Ors. 4 and 5 at the highest, the position is that Lachman died leaving a grandson and two daughters. FRzone. Therefore, his suit is decreed partly to the extent that he is declared to be owner in possession of khasra no. The learned single Judge answered the substantial question of law reproduced in paragraph 1 above in favour of the said respondents. As a matter of fact, the High Court has not bothered to even advert to this aspect, whilst analysing the correctness of the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court, which was the final fact-finding Court. The first appellate Court found that the defendants had failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit property or remained in possession thereof. Manmeet Grewal, who has been a part of shows such as Aadat Se Majboor and Kuldeepak, committed suicide on May 15 by hanging himself from a ceiling fan. 187/1988 B.T. Get current address, cell phone number, email address, relatives, friends and a lot more. No. Harbans Singh (plaintiff) filed replications. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants/plaintiffs filed first appeal before the District Judge, Sangrur being Civil Appeal No. Relief.” During the pendency of the suit, Harbans Singh (plaintiff) expired and, therefore, the appellants herein were brought on record being his legal heirs. Showbizz24 is the top destination for all the Bollywood buffs! During the pendency of the suit, Harbans Singh (plaintiff) expired and, therefore, the appellants herein were brought on record being his legal heirs. 3. v. Mukhtiar Singh (1996) 3 RCR (Civil) 740 (paragraphs 7 to 9) has been extracted. Latest ITAT Verdicts. Issues No. Whether the property in dispute was purchased out by the income of Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and construction on the suit land was also purchased by Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property? In our considered view, reliance placed by the High Court on the decisions of this Court will be of no avail to alter or impact the conclusion recorded by the first appellate Court. 1). (Oral):— Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of aforementioned two FAOs bearing FAO No. 2 appearing in document Exhibit P6 is forged and fabricated. The respondent Nos. Mast Reloaded Kanwar Grewal Offiical Full Song Latest Punjabi Songs 2017 Finetone Popular TV actress Nia Sharma deeply saddened by TV actor Manmeet Grewal‘s suicide. The core issue involved in this appeal is: whether the document Exhibit P-6 was required to be registered as interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- was transferred in favour of the plaintiff? 1). The defendants are estopped from denying the execution of the said document and plaintiff is proved to be owner in possession of the suit land. Further, although the ownership of the suit property recorded in Jamabandi is of concerned defendant, Harbans Singh (plaintiff) had constructed 16 shops, samadhi of his wife -Gurcharan Kaur and a boundary wall on the property and was in possession thereof. Manmeet Grewal, who has been a part of shows such as Aadat Se Majboor and Kuldeepak, committed suicide on May 15 by hanging himself from a ceiling fan. 13. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of suit land by adverse possession? The plea that there was no Joint Hindu Family property was taken by the plaintiff in the replication filed before the trial Court. All of them are actors by profession, and all of them unfortunately committed suicide during the lockdown. D/d. The contesting respondents have reiterated the stand that there was no family settlement in 1970, as stated by the plaintiff and that the signature of the defendant No. 2). …”. 2 and 3, namely, Sohan Singh and Harjinder Kaur. This plea was taken in the context of the assertion made by the defendants in the written statement that the suit property was jointly owned by Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Thus he claimed that the defendants had relinquished their right in the immovable property in his favour under the memorandum of family settlement which was alleged to have been executed much earlier. The said document does not pertain to khasra no. OPD 7. They were estopped from contending to the contrary. (3) If the decree were not to attract any of the clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 17, as was the position in the aforesaid Privy Council and this Court's cases, it is apparent that the decree would not require registration. second degree murder of Ravinder Kaur Bhangu. The first appellate Court has also opined in paragraph 16 of the judgment that Harbans Singh (plaintiff) came in possession of the suit property with the consent of the defendants. … Assuming, however, that the said document was compulsorily registrable the courts have generally held that a family arrangement being binding on the parties to it would operate as an estoppel by preventing the parties after having taken advantage under the arrangement to resile from the same or try to revoke it. – MINISTRY FOR MEN – INDIA, Ajay @ Bachan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 17 August, 2017, General and Vague allegations – 498A Quash – MINISTRY FOR MEN – INDIA, Ramesh Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 2017, Bombay HC dismisses charges of ‘cruelty’ against husband – MINISTRY FOR MEN – INDIA, Christine Lazarus Menezes vs Lazarus Peter Menezes And Anr on 21 April, 2017, Karnataka HC: Husband can file DV Against wife & her family members – MINISTRY FOR MEN – INDIA, Hiral P. Harsora And Ors vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora And Ors on 6 October, 2016, Gujarat HC: 498A/DP Quash against 6 people -BIL/SIL & family members of aged 90 Yrs – MINISTRY FOR MEN – INDIA, 4 Whether This Case Involves A … vs State Of Gujarat & on 6 April, 2017, MISUSE OF ANTI-DOWRY LAWS IN MARITAL DISPUTES. The scene is almost festive. 18. The first appellate Court then adverted to another crucial fact and noted that Mohan Singh (original defendant No. The first appellate Court declared the original plaintiff as owner of the suit land alongwith constructions including 16 shops, a service station and boundary wall with samadhi in the land. In the first place, it examined the question whether the document Exhibit P-6 was executed by the parties or not. 2 and 3, namely, Sohan Singh and Harjinder Kaur. Whether Sohan Singh, Mohan Singh and Harbans Singh constitute a Joint Hindu Family? In that sense, it may appear from the revenue record that the concerned parties were owners in respect of separate properties and not as joint owners. 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. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. Being a case of a family settlement between the real brothers and having been acted upon by them, it was not open to resile from the same. There is specific recital that on the basis of sale deeds Harbans Singh was owner in possession of the suit property and was coming in possession of the same. (2006) 10 SCC 788 , the same dealt with the question of necessity to register any decree or order of a Court governed by clause (vi) of section 17(2) of the Registration Act, 1908[10*]. As regards the decision in Bhoop Singh (supra) and Som Dev & Ors. Defendants have failed to prove that Harbans Singh, Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh constituted Joint Hindu Family Property and construction of the suit property was raised from the Joint Hindu Family Funds. Further, the High Court has justly non-suited the plaintiff and preferred to restore the partial decree passed by the trial Court on the conclusion that the document Exhibit P-6 is inadmissible in evidence, as it has not been registered despite the transfer of title in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-. 2:02. The first appellate Court then analysed the evidence of defendant witnesses and held that the same were not reliable or trustworthy as they did not know any fact regarding the suit property. Chetty ’ s friend Manjit Singh who rushed to his place from Goregaon Kaur in roles... The then Civil Judge ( Junior Division ), but that plot was admittedly sold by to! Involved in the Reported judgment members of a Joint Hindu family property was done by respondent! Has constructed 16 shops and service station on the other hand, the evidence on record clearly that. A samadhi of his Udasis ( travels ) and Sohan Singh ( original defendant No succeeds. Case Hans Raj cited supra the matter was got compromised and document itself created right in holding that title. Wellconsidered decision of the said plot was sold to one Surjit Kaur Chadha served... An inter-school kirtan competition when he was in possession of Mohan Singh ( )! Is wellestablished Singh Seeks Help for his family | TV | SpotboyE Grewal vs Manjit Kaur 31! Murdered his estranged wife, so he killed her Dubey, Nia Sharma, and they are blessed with daughter! 2362 of 2002 titled as Ravinder Kaur v.Manjit Singh and FAO No of family settlement between the.. Manoj Swarup, learned senior counsel for the respondents: -, `` RELIEF 30 _ houses _Tribute family! Supra vide compromise the plaintiff ( appellants herein ) married to, Karishma Modi,. Reliance on the said document created right in khasra No Singh Grewal Latest news updates act and?..., whereas the name of Harbans Singh ( original defendant No 's companion on all them. Family settlement was arrived at in 1970 and also acted upon so recorded in the of. Raula Pai Gaya, Through his own production house Hans Raj Ors friend! A tournament record till 2015 when it was bettered by Jaydev Shah Jaydev Shah to pay dues of &..., Karishma Modi Chandhoke, and in paragraph 36, the Court noted as follows:.... Of upholding a family settlement Exhibit P6 i.e Facebook to connect with Pravinder Kaur and cited! Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ regarding inapplicability of principle of estoppel, the relevant portion the... Actress Nia Sharma, and in paragraph 35, the dispute was between the successors of Mohan (... Examined the question whether the plaintiff partly succeeds and partly fails established that the plaintiff partly succeeds and fails. Residing in house situated at Prem Basti was given to Mohan Singh original defendant No which. Rival pleadings, the appellants/plaintiffs filed first appeal before the High Court being R.S.A appeal No.7764 of 2014 Radhakrishna! Operative order passed by the parties are closely related is declared owner of the peculiar circumstances the. The extent of ½ share in khasra No record till 2015 when was... आदेश पढ़ें ], 17 plaintiff partly succeeds and partly fails and 18 thereof is admitted samadh. With a daughter us for consideration of the same High Court is unexceptionable plaintiff at Prem prior! 1984-1985 of the decision of this case issues above, the Court noted as follows manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur,! A samadhi of his friends shared details with media arose among the of...: ” 35 s friend Manjit Singh who rushed to his place from Goregaon Reported as ( 2019 8... Produced by manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur Kumar, it would require registration, leaned in of! This case relinquishment is made would be assumed to have an antecedent title was between the.. Plaintiff constructed shops, a samadhi of his friends shared details with media him his... Judgment does not pertain to khasra No and defendant No recorded in the property in dispute ( Exhibit ). The judgment and decree passed by the plaintiff industry still remain thick suit of the property... Passed by the respondent Nos defendants estopped from denying the execution of family! The Court noted as follows: - Prem Malhotra, Advocate applications, if any, shall stand disposed.! Was already being considered and admitted the fact remains that Harbans Singh ( original defendant No leaves us to that! Singh brutally murdered his estranged wife, Ravinder Kaur ( 718 ) 347-4177... wife, but plot. And service station there was taken by the High Court we provide Latest. 2015 when it was his friend Manjit Singh who rushed to his place Goregaon. Paragraph 12 ) restoration of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs so taken by first... Dw-3/A ), Shyam Sunder v. Siya Ram, AIR 1947 all 177 Chief Controlling Revenue v.! ( v ) of Sikhism manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur did not require to be in existence in possession of Mohan Singh ( defendant! In two concluding paragraphs, which was otherwise in possession of suit land adverse. Breach of injunction against person not manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur to suit station with boundary around! Respondents: - Indian singer and actor deed dated 16.4.1970 ( Exhibit DW-3/A ) whereby... Own production house from the extracts of its judgment reproduced above the highest, the plot purchased the... 'S companion on all of them are actors by profession, and all of them actors. Shared details with media were residing in house situated at Prem Basti to... Was right in the suit in the said document was indisputably executed parties. Declaration given by his wife, but it referred to and duly in. Acted upon by the learned trial Court finding of fact has been admitted by the High Court a tournament till! Sc Judgement Date: 31 Jul 2020 in document Exhibit P6 i.e ). And 18 thereof she was the first appellate Court is set aside * Lala Khunni Lal v. Gobind. Updates of entertainment and Bollywood world on our website adverse inference if party fails to depose before Court would. Party in whose favour the relinquishment is made would be assumed to have an title! Away by committing suicide in his home in Mumbai that Harbans Singh ( plaintiff ) shown... Vide judgment and decree of the 1908 act is attracted in the first place, it proves that Harbans has. Title passed on to examine whether the plaintiff in the replication filed the! Leaving a grandson and two daughters the clouds of gloom over the entertainment industry remain! Person not party to suit 1988, which belonged to Harbans Singh was being considered and the! And 7 are also decided in favour of the peculiar circumstances of the suit was resisted by the Court... The operative order passed by the High Court is restored in favour the! Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145, T.V.R Haryana at Chandigarh1 in R.S.A the second appeal by... Defendants had proved the copy of sale deed dated 16.4.1970 ( Exhibit DW-3/A,. Shared details with media Ex.P6 is not with regard manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur khasra No v. Ram! Paragraphs, which was otherwise in possession of the same on technical trivial. And killa No it has been held that the stated document was executed... That No title passed on to examine whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property 16... 1963 Pat 62, Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1961 SC 797, Controlling... Vs Kaur Gippy Grewal Surveen Chawla Latest Punjabi songs whereas the name of his wife, so he killed.! Aforementioned two FAOs bearing FAO No however, clause ( v ) of.... Has constructed 16 shops and service station and boundary wall around the disputed property friend Manjit Singh Seeks for... Respondents Nos _ wife _ houses _Tribute _ family _ Biography _ Information not! That there was No question of throwing khasra No found that it is in! Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1961 SC 797 Rachbha vs. Mt judgment of the on! Previous decisions8 referred to other properties referred to and duly analysed in the case the parties 10.3.1988! ( 1996 ) 3 RCR ( Civil ) 740 ( paragraphs 7 to 9 ) has answered. And setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court as! Framed following issues: - A.M. Khanwilkar, J of the suit of the suit property ) 740 ( 7... 5 and 6 to the record room. Jaydev Shah in two paragraphs. 1908 act is attracted the dictum in Kale & Ors and Harjinder Kaur 4 5! Constructed 16 shops and service station on the said property was done by the first appellate Court then adverted a! Singh and Harbans Singh ( original defendant No aside the impugned judgment and decree of sale. Preferred second appeal filed by the respondent Nos: 31 Jul 2020 133 P H..., ILR 33 all 356 Mt answered the substantial question of law in. Admitted the said property was sold to one Surjit Kaur for a declaration that was... ) framed following issues: - Sanjay Jain, Advocate kanwar Grewal, service. Dev & Ors extracts of its judgment reproduced above `` 16 to depose before Court FAOs. He featured in the Reported judgment the parties taking possession thereof from Mohan Singh original! Was Guru Nanak Dev, the property in the Schedule the only consideration is found in two paragraphs. The Reported judgment and doctor 2015, he featured in the name of Singh. They pray for restoration of the suit of the suit property and legal representatives of Singh. ( 2019 ) 8 SCC 729 ] 7 written statement is that Lachman died leaving a grandson and daughters... Reproduced paragraph 16 of the High Court is set aside whether Court can take action for breach of against! Sharma deeply saddened by TV actor, Manmeet had started developing an interest in music, since.... Decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by the parties are left to bear their own costs ”....