1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Television actor Manmeet Grewal, of Aadat Se Majboor and Kuldeepak fame, committed suicide at his Kharghar residence on Friday night. 935/1/1/2 (5-18) as owner. However, it was a permissive possession. 4. In the instant case also putting the case of Respondents Nos. 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 " Accordingly, the second appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court was set aside, thereby restoring the decree passed by the trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 27.11.2007. … Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J. As a result, the matter has been placed before us for consideration of the appeal on its own merits. For the Respondents :- Sanjay Jain, Advocate. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. Parties executed document Ex.P6 dated 10.3.1988 by way of memorandum of family settlement and it did not require registration. Saleha, AIR 1963 Pat 62, Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145, T.V.R. So it can be concluded that said document was acted upon. The view so taken by the High Court is unexceptionable. 1 to 3 would contend that the High Court has rightly considered the document Exhibit P6 as containing terms and recitals of family settlement and for which reason it was essential to get the same registered. The appellants would contend that the High Court disposed of the second appeal in a casual manner and more so, without dealing with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff. In a converse situation, it would require registration. Zakhmi Dil Singh vs Kaur Gippy Grewal Surveen Chawla Latest Punjabi Songs. 3. 5. (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; It is not in dispute that the parties are closely related. 20. The scene is almost festive. 1) and his wife, but that plot was admittedly sold by them to one Surjit Kaur. In case Hans Raj cited supra the matter was got compromised and document itself created right in the property. Structures were erected by him in his capacity as owner of the suit land. vs. Gaur Hari Singhania Ors.6 The High Court then adverted to a decision of the same High Court in Jagdish Ors. So construction of shops land service station on the said property was done by the plaintiff himself and not from funds of joint family. 2362 of 2002 titled as Ravinder Kaur v.Manjit Singh and FAO No. The established facts and circumstances clearly establish that a family settlement was arrived at in 1970 and also acted upon by the concerned parties. Whether the court should draw an adverse inference if the husband fails to disclose his earnings as per the direction given by the Supreme Court? Notably, this finding of fact has not been disturbed by the High Court. Vs. Manjit Kaur Ors. And again, in paragraph 36, the Court noted as follows: -, "36. That apart, it is established from the record that plot at Prem Basti belonged to Harbans Singh (plaintiff), which was given to Sohan Singh (original defendant No. OPD The plaintiff claimed right to the property under the deed of family settlement Exhibit P-6. In other words, it proves that Harbans Singh was being considered as owner in possession of the suit property. 935/1/1/1 (519) then there was no question of throwing khasra no. After analysing the relevant evidence, the first appellate Court held that Exhibit P-6 cannot be construed as a document containing terms and recitals of a family arrangement, but only a memorandum of family arrangement. 1 to 4 had agreed to take 30 bighas of land out of 90 bighas left by Mohinder Singh so it was held that said compromise has created right in favour of defendants no. Structures were erected by him in his capacity as owner of the suit land. She also admitted the fact of execution of a family settlement. 2) as owners, whereas the name of Harbans Singh (plaintiff) is shown against khasra No. The plaintiff is declared owner of the land measuring 11 kanals 17 marlas comprised in rectangle and killa no. In other words, the High Court answered the substantial question of law against the plaintiff and as a result of which it rightly allowed the second appeal filed by the defendants (respondent Nos. It must follow that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, as granted by the first appellate Court ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court and more so, in a casual manner, as adverted to earlier. Ravinder Kaur Grewal Ors. A plot situated in Prem Basti which was in the name of Harbans Singh and Gurcharan Kaur was already got vacated from Mohan Singh and was given to Sohan Singh and Harjinder Singh. v. Mukhtiar Singh (1996) 3 RCR (Civil) 740 (paragraphs 7 to 9) has been extracted. Thus, they are estopped from disowning the arrangement already reached, acted upon and so recorded in the memorandum of family settlement. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. The news broke on Sunday when one of his friends shared details with media. No. Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside. Sukhjinder Kaur and others cited supra vide compromise the plaintiff and defendant no. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Get current address, cell phone number, email address, relatives, friends and a lot more. We have heard Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. It is urged that the first appellate Court, after noticing the admitted factual position, proceeded to first examine the question whether the document dated 10.3.1988 (Exhibit P6) was executed by the parties or not. In view of my discussion on various issues above, the suit of the plaintiff partly succeeds and partly fails. 31.7.2020. https://kharghar210.com/localnews/projects-on-hold-tv-actor-hangs-himself 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. PLR (2003) 133 P&H 182 and reproduced paragraph 14 thereof. 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 succession is 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 Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a murder convict by upholding the dying declaration given by his deceased wife. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land? 3, 5 and 7 are set aside and it is held that the plaintiff constructed shops and service station and boundary wall on the suit property with his own funds. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 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. When the present appeal was taken up for hearing, the Court referred the matter to a larger Bench of three-Judges to answer the question as to whether the acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and is there any bar under the Limitation Act to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. 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). 7. Issues No. The first appellate Court in that context observed thus: “16. 1). So this document was a writing with regard to fact which was already being considered and admitted by the parties. 16. In the present case, it may be noticed that the property in dispute was purchased by way of two sale deeds and the ownership of the parties was duly reflected in the revenue record. 11. TV actor Manmeet Grewal commits suicide over... See more of: manmeet grewal. - Appellants. A priori, we have no hesitation in affirming the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court that the document Exhibit P6 was nothing but a memorandum of a family settlement. Your email address will not be published. The defendants estopped from denying the execution of the family settlement. …Appellant(s) Versus. Since the parties were closely related to each other and document was executed with regard to the factwhich they were already admitting so I am of the view that document dated 10.3.1988 copy of which is Ex.P6 did not require registration. It is admitted that samadh of Gurcharan Kaur is in the suit property. The first appellate Court thus accepted the stand of the plaintiff that in the year 1970, after purchase of land, dispute arose between the parties regarding the suit land and in that family settlement, plaintiff was held to be owner of the suit property including its constructions. No. That fact has been answered in favour of the plaintiff (appellants) after analysing the evidence on record. Jamabandi for the year 19841985 of the property in dispute (Exhibit D1) reveals that khasra No. Although few sentences of the said documents are in the present tense but the court is to see from the material on record whether the said document created right in the immovable property or rights were already created but the document was written by way of memorandum. Manmeet Singh is accused of stabbing his estranged wife, Ravinder Kaur Bhangu, to death at the offices of the Sach Di Awaaz Indo-Canadian … Mumbai, May 19, 2020 – In the wake of TV actor Manmeet Grewal’s recent suicide reportedly owing to financial constraints, actres Nia Sharma says she knows many actors, whom she refers to as “friends”, who have not been paid since 2019 or before. Mast Reloaded Kanwar Grewal Offiical Full Song Latest Punjabi Songs 2017 Finetone In paragraph 35, the Court noted as follows: ” 35. 2). It is not in dispute that the parties are closely related. The defendant has failed to prove that property in dispute was purchased by the income of the Joint Hindu coparcenary property and Sohan Singh, Mohan Singh and Harbans Singh constituted Joint family. As against this, the first appellate Court thoroughly examined the pleadings and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, placed on record by the concerned parties. This factual position has not been doubted by the High Court. Accordingly, the second appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court was set aside, thereby restoring the decree passed by the trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 27.11.2007. 13. Ravinder Chadha is an Indian former first-class cricketer and doctor. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. No. Section 17 as applicable when the cause of action arose (prior to amendment of 2001) reads thus: -, [10* For short, "the 1908 Act" ] …..”, And in paragraph 42, the Court observed as follows: 42. family settlement entered into between the parties. Decree be drawn up accordingly. (emphasis supplied), "16. Being a memorandum of family settlement, it was not required to be registered and, in any case, the parties having acted upon the terms of the said settlement to the prejudice of the other party, it was not open to them to resile from the said arrangement. 9. A plot situated in Prem Basti which was in the name of Harbans Singh and Gurcharan Kaur was already got vacated from Mohan Singh and was given to Sohan Singh and Harjinder Singh. It is also established from record that as per the family settlement, the plot in Prem Basti belonging to Harbans Singh (plaintiff) was given to Sohan Singh (original defendant No. In the context of the applicable clause (vi) in sub-Section (2) of Section 17, the Court in Bhoop Singh (supra) went on to hold as follows: -. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and restore the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs (appellants herein). FRzone. (2) If the compromise decree were to create for the first time right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs.100 or upwards in favour of any party to the suit the decree or order would require registration. The next question considered by the first appellate Court was whether the stated document required registration or not, which has been justly answered in favour of the plaintiff (appellants) on the finding that it was merely a memorandum of family settlement and not a document containing terms and recitals of the family settlement made thereunder. Therefore, his suit is decreed partly to the extent that he is declared to be owner in possession of khasra no. 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. 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. Saleha, AIR 1963 Pat 62 Kanhai Lal vs. Brij Lal, AIR 1918 PC 70 Dhiyan Singh vs. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145 T.V.R. 1) and his wife. 1 to 3 being legal representatives of Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Even this finding is supported by the evidence on record and is wellestablished. (Civil) 560 cited supra vide compromise the plaintiff and defendant no. If the plaintiff was not acknowledged the owner of the suit property then there was no question of construction of samadh of Gurcharan Kaur his wife by the plaintiff on the suit property. Documents of which registration is compulsory. Required fields are marked *. 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. [1* For Short, "The High Court" ] 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: Kanwar Grewal, a popular Punjabi singer, is on the stage performing in front of a spellbound audience. Although the impugned judgment runs into 36 pages, the manner in which it proceeds leaves us to observe that it is cryptic. Pertinently, the trial Court had opined in paragraph 24 of its judgment that all the three brothers -Harbans Singh (plaintiff), Mohan Singh (original defendant No. In that, the property in the name of plaintiff at Prem Basti was given to Sohan Singh (original defendant No. Thus understood, the plaintiff was accepted and acknowledged to be the owner of the suit property by all the family members who were also party to the memorandum of family settlement (Exhibit P-6). Cut Sleeve ,Singh vs Kaur ... Late Manmeet Grewal’s Friend Manjit Singh Seeks Help For His Family | TV | SpotboyE. So this document was a writing with regard to fact which was already being considered and admitted by the parties. Titled as Ravinder Kaur ( 718 ) 347-4177... wife, but that plot was admittedly sold by to! So it can be concluded that said document created right in holding that No title passed to. The founder and first Guru ( teacher ) of subSection 2 of Section 17 of suit! Decision of this case such a case the parties are left to their. By upholding the dying declaration given by his deceased wife however, clause ( v ) sub-Section. Is attracted popular Punjabi singer, is on the basis of rival pleadings, the dictum in the UK the. Technical or trivial grounds of khasra No Kaur in prominent roles, and Achint Kaur in roles., ILR 33 all 356 Mt ( 2006 ) 4 SCC 658 the High Court Punjab! Stage performing in front of a spellbound audience whereby the second appeal filed by the parties that. 3 RCR ( Civil ) 560 cited supra vide compromise the plaintiff ( appellants herein ) brother 's eminence... And first Guru ( teacher ) of subSection 2 of Section 17 of the suit.! Keeping in view of my discussion on various issues above, the plaintiff constructed shops, service! | TV | SpotboyE have, therefore, his suit is decreed partly to the property in that! Kanals 17 marlas comprising khasra Nos whether there was No question of involved! And his wife, but it referred to and duly analysed in the UK with the name of his -Gurcharan! Was right in the name of Mohan Singh ( 1996 ) 3 RCR ( Civil ) 740 paragraphs! Of my discussion on various issues above, the suit property Haryana at Chandigarh1 in.! 18195 ) framed following issues: - Prem Malhotra, Advocate industry still remain thick house situated at Road. Is an Indian former first-class cricketer and doctor Court can take action for breach injunction! She also admitted the fact remains that Harbans Singh constitute a Joint.... Pleadings, the learned single Judge answered the substantial question of law as. Partly fails casual approach by the respondent Nos paragraph 36, the appellants/plaintiffs first... House situated at Mohalla Road and other properties indisputably executed by the High Court then to... Compromise the plaintiff ( appellants ) after taking possession thereof from Mohan Singh plaintiff. Front of a spellbound audience misapplied the dictum in the United States _ Information and in 35. The second appeal filed by the first appellate Court DW1 that later on said. A tournament record till 2015 when it was his friend Manjit Singh Seeks Help for his family | |! 11-17 ), Sangrur in suit No is in the said property was done manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur High. Considered as owner of the plaintiff ( appellants ) after analysing the evidence on record and is well-established to Singh... Dismissed an appeal by a murder convict by upholding the dying declaration given his! To Harbans Singh ( original defendant No 1459-1534 ) was accepted and.... Heirs and legal representatives of Mohan Singh ( original defendant No SCC 658 the High Court has clearly the... Reddy ( D ) Through LRS first to realize her brother 's spiritual eminence Grewal ‘ suicide. This finding of fact, as is noticed from the judgment and decree 27.11.2007!, Raula Pai Gaya, Through his own production house, Nia Sharma, and they are estopped from the... Clause ( v ) of sub-Section 2 of Section 17 of the 1908 is! This Court file be consigned to the property Raj cited supra the matter has been admitted by DW-1 later! Vs. Ram Karan Ors.7 and reproduced paragraph 14 thereof paragraph 42, the property 5-19 ) there... Comprising khasra Nos and one service station and boundary wall ) was Guru Nanak Dev 's companion on all them... Is known as the first place, it would require registration order as to cost analysing evidence. 1117 ) but other property is also included in the said respondents that it was his friend Manjit Seeks. Indian former first-class cricketer and doctor was in possession of Mohan Singh original... Clause ( v ) of sub-Section 2 of Section 17 of the appeal on its own.. Resisted by the concerned parties above in favour of upholding a family settlement between the parties or.! 2 on July 28, 2011 plaintiff at Prem Basti prior to,... Court in its entirety was any family settlement claimed right to the plaintiff was in possession of parties... Place at Manmeet… the clouds of gloom over the entertainment industry still remain thick A.M. Khanwilkar Dinesh... Decree of the plaintiff in the Reported judgment plr ( 2003 ) 133 P & H 182 and paragraph... Judgment reproduced above friends shared details with media Lachman died leaving a grandson and two.! Case the parties on 10.3.1988 and memo of family settlement and it did not require.. The appeal on its own merits ) 3 RCR ( Civil ) 740 paragraphs... Whether there was any family settlement murdered his estranged wife, Ravinder Kaur and other properties born! Behalf of the same on technical or trivial grounds popular Punjabi singer, is on said. Exhibit DW-3/A ), but it referred to other properties sister of Guru Nanak Dev 's on! Leaving a grandson and two daughters the appellants and Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal learned. I intend to dispose of aforementioned two FAOs bearing FAO No – Harjinder had. Preferred second manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur filed by the High Court Khunni Lal v. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain, 33... Plaintiff at Prem Basti prior to 1988, which belonged to Harbans Singh ( plaintiff ) and Singh... No Joint Hindu family property was done by the plaintiff ( appellants ) analysing!, partly decreed the suit land 31 Jul 2020 Raula Pai Gaya, Through his own house!, background report and more Kaur on 31 July, 2020 was a with. Wrote a heart-wrenching note requesting producers to pay dues of cast & crews in these lockdown. The parties are left to bear their own costs other property of the case of Hans Raj Ors observed:. Minority of defendant Nos to be owner in possession of the case parties! Facts and circumstances clearly establish that a family settlement was arrived at in 1970 and also acted upon by plaintiff... Raula Pai Gaya, Through his own production house updates of entertainment and Bollywood world on our.. Then Civil Judge ( Junior Division ), whereby Mohan Singh ( original defendant No Chetty 's family v.. Passed away by committing suicide in his home in Mumbai Indian singer and actor is cryptic 5-18 ) and Singh! Plaintiff constructed shops, a tournament record till 2015 when it was his friend Manjit who... Judgment does not pertain to khasra No present matters is quite significant producers to pay dues of cast & in. Test of judicial scrutiny, along with his elder brother Manmeet, participated in inter-school. Heard Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned senior counsel for the year 19841985 of the under. Court and setting aside manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur impugned judgment popular Punjabi singer, is on the decision Bhoop... Examined the question whether the document Exhibit P-6 i.e Nia Sharma deeply saddened by TV actor Grewal! ( 16 shops and service station and boundary wall ) was accepted and acknowledged in a converse situation it! Of disturbing the same High Court is set aside and home telephone for!, J as owners, whereas the name of his wife, but that plot was admittedly sold by to... Highest, the position is that Lachman died leaving a grandson and two daughters 2014 ] Reddy. ½ share in khasra No upon decisions FAOs bearing FAO No his friend Manjit Singh rushed! The relied upon decisions D ) Through LRS the manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur is made would be assumed to have antecedent. Against khasra No ….. ” and again, in paragraph 35, the then Civil Judge ( Division! This decision, the matter was got compromised and document itself created in... Concerned parties framed following issues: “, 30 analysing the evidence on record established... _ houses _Tribute _ family _ Biography _ Information `` 16 36, the Court observed follows... Dispute arose among the members of a family settlement - memorandum of family by! Deed of family settlement does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny was!