Summary
The evidence supported the claimed family settlement extinguishing the respondents’ branch’s half share in the Kamla Nagar property for Rs.55,000. The suggested maintenance explanation lacked support, while payment, possession, rental dealings and absence of a lifetime claim supported the appellants. Their exclusive ownership and the trial decree were restored. Separately, no evidence showed that the Malcha Marg property was bought with joint-family funds; its exclusive ownership by the respondents’ branch was upheld. The two appeals accordingly had opposite outcomes.
Issues
- Whether payment and surrounding conduct established settlement of the Kamla Nagar share.
- Whether the Malcha Marg property was proved to be joint-family property.
- What separate relief followed for each property and appeal.
Held
- The Rs.55,000 payment was established, and nothing showed it was for HUF upkeep or some other account. The respondents’ branch had not resided in the Kamla Nagar property; its maintenance was borne by those exclusively enjoying it. The proposed upkeep explanation was therefore implausible on these facts. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The earlier wealth-tax valuation, the later payment for a half share, the appellants’ continuing possession and their collection of rents without a share being claimed during ACK’s lifetime supported the asserted family settlement. The Court rejected the view that the consideration was wholly sham and restored the trial conclusion on the overall record. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- The concurrent conclusion concerning Malcha Marg was different: there was no evidence, even remotely, that it had been acquired from joint-family funds. Its exclusive ownership and devolution within the respondents’ branch were upheld. (¶¶ 18, 22)
- For Kamla Nagar, the High Court judgment in RFA 439/2008 was set aside, the trial decree restored and the appellants declared exclusive owners. Civil Appeal 1591/2020 was allowed. For Malcha Marg, the High Court judgment in RFA 483/2008 was upheld and Civil Appeal 1592/2020 dismissed. (¶ 22)
- Status quo orders were vacated, the decree sheet was to be drawn accordingly, and parties were left to bear their own costs. The early-hearing application became infructuous. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Civil Appeal 1591/2020 allowed: Kamla Nagar trial decree restored and appellants declared exclusive owners. Civil Appeal 1592/2020 dismissed: Malcha Marg ruling upheld. Status quo orders vacated; parties to bear their own costs.