A priori, we have no hesitation in affirming the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court that the document Exhibit P-6 was nothing but a memorandum of a family settlement. Join Facebook to connect with Pravinder Kaur and others you may know. In such a case the party in whose favour the relinquishment is made would be assumed to have an antecedent title " (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. 2) were real brothers of Harbans Singh (original plaintiff). 6. Parties executed document Ex.P-6 dated 10.3.1988 by way of memorandum of family settlement and it did not require registration. 1 to 3). 11. 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? For which reason, relief claimed by the plaintiff founded on the family settlement between the real brothers arrived at in 1970, acted upon without any exception and documented on 10.3.1988, ought to follow. (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*]. Document Ex.P-6 is not with regard to khasra no. 1 to 3 would contend that the High Court has rightly considered the document Exhibit P-6 as containing terms and recitals of family settlement and for which reason it was essential to get the same registered. Thus, they are estopped from disowning the arrangement already reached, acted upon and so recorded in the memorandum of family settlement. Get current address, cell phone number, email address, relatives, friends and a lot more. Mendha, AIR 1947 All 177 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs. Smt. FRzone. 2 and 3, namely, Sohan Singh and Harjinder Kaur. 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. (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. TV actor Manmeet Grewal commits suicide over... See more of: manmeet grewal. So it can be concluded that said document was acted upon. 935/1 (11-17). Khushboo Grewal and Manmeet Singh during a party hosted by Manmeet Singh and Harmeet Singh from Meet Bros at True Tramm Trunk in Mumbai on February 08, 2016. Bebe Nanaki was the first to realize her brother's spiritual eminence. However, after execution of the memorandum of family settlement dated 10.3.1988, the defendants once again raised new issues to resile from the family arrangement. Tweet. 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. 4 and 5. We provide the latest updates of entertainment and Bollywood world on our website. 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. 1 and 2 and 7 are also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Satyawati Sood, AIR 1972 Delhi 171 (FB), Shyam Sunder v. Siya Ram, AIR 1973 All 382], 17. The parties were not in possession of Joint Hindu Family property as such and therefore, the question of partition of that property does not arise. The first appellate Court, after reappreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, was pleased to allow the appeal and modify the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The High Court then went on to extract paragraph 16 of the judgment of the first appellate Court in its entirety, running into about 8 pages and then formulated the substantial question of law. 2) were real brothers of Harbans Singh (original plaintiff). Relief." 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. 2) were residing in house situated at Prem Basti prior to 1988, which belonged to Harbans Singh (plaintiff). 935/1/1/1 (519) but entire khasra no. 2) respectively would continue to exist in the revenue record as owners to the extent of half share and the plaintiff would have no objection in that regard due to close relationship between the parties. vs. Ram Karan Ors.7 and reproduced paragraph 14 thereof. Sukhjinder Kaur and others cited supra vide compromise the plaintiff and defendant no. Your email address will not be published. (i[r].q=i[r].q||).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), OPP, 3. second degree murder of Ravinder Kaur Bhangu. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. The first appellate Court then adverted to another crucial fact and noted that Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. Kanwar Grewal, a popular Punjabi singer, is on the stage performing in front of a spellbound audience. ….. There shall be no order as to costs. The appellants have questioned the correctness of the view taken by the High Court and in particular, reversing the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court. The 28-year-old Surrey man, who attacked his wife with a hatchet during a brazen and brutal daylight slaying in Surrey two years ago, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder on Monday (June 10). In substance, it is established that the parties had acted upon the family settlement, which was recorded in the form of document - Exhibit P-6 being a memorandum of family settlement. Documents of which registration is compulsory.- The father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 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. 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. (5) If the property dealt with by the decree be not the "subject-matter of the suit or proceeding", clause (vi) of sub-section (2) would not operate, because of the amendment of this clause by Act 21 of 1929, which has its origin in the aforesaid decision of the Privy Council, according to which the original clause would have been attracted, even if it were to encompass property not litigated." Since the parties were closely related to each other and document was executed with regard to the fact-which they were already admitting so I am of the view that document dated 10.3.1988 copy of which is Ex.P-6 did not require registration. Had the said document created right in khasra no. 2) are closely related being real brothers. 19. She stopped breast feed; to save her Beauty. 1 to 3 (heirs and legal representatives of Mohan Singh - original defendant No. 1) preferred second appeal before the High Court being R.S.A. After analysing the relevant evidence, the first appellate Court held that Exhibit P6 cannot be construed as a document containing terms and recitals of a family arrangement, but only a memorandum of family arrangement. 935/1/1/2 (5-18) and to the extent of share in khasra no. OPP Thus, the dictum in Kale (supra) is attracted in the fact situation of this case. We say no more. 1 as also the High Court, therefore, committed substantial error of law in not giving effect to the doctrine of estoppel as spelt out by this Court in so many cases. Ravinder Kaur Grewal Ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur Ors. In case Hans Raj cited supra the matter was got compromised and document itself created right in the property. The first appellate Court in that context observed thus: “16. In Shishpal vs. Vikram cited supra it was held that during life time of Gyani Ram the plaintiff filed suit so there could not be any family settlement. Harjinder Kaur had stepped into witness box and admitted the said fact. Whether the plaintiff constructed shops, a service station and boundary wall around the disputed property? [2* Reported as (2019) 8 SCC 729 ] OPD, 7. v. Ram Karan & Ors. A 20-hour-long non-stop rescue operation went in vain as a four-year-old boy was declared dead in hospital soon after he was brought out of a borewell at Ravinder Kaur Grewal Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 119. In the said reported decision, a three-Judge 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. 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? 13. 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. On this count alone, impugned judgment does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Harbans Singh (plaintiff) had appeared on behalf of the purchaser at the time of execution of the sale deed. 1) and his wife. Further, plot purchased by Harbans Singh (plaintiff) in the name of his son was given to Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Family, Caste & Wife. Subbu Chetty’s Family Charities vs. M. Gaghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC 797 Rachbha vs. Mt. When the present appeal was taken up for hearing, the Court referred the matter to a larger Bench of threeJudges 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. Whether court should draw adverse inference if party fails to depose before court? On this count alone, impugned judgment does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 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 factfinding Court. Keeping in view the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the case, no order as to cost. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. He asserted that there was a family settlement with the intervention of respectable persons and family members, whereunder his ownership and possession in respect of the suit land including the constructions thereon (16 shops, a samadhi of his wife -Gurcharan Kaur and one service station with boundary wall) was accepted and acknowledged. Gurcharan Kaur. However, after execution of the memorandum of family settlement dated 10.3.1988, the defendants once again raised new issues to resile from the family arrangement. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. OPP, 4. - This appeal emanates from the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh[1*] in R.S.A. Further, plot purchased by Harbans Singh (plaintiff) in the name of his son was given to Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 395 (1117) but other property is also included in the said document. 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. The incident took place at Manmeet… Whether prosecution can cross-examine hostile witness with his statement recorded by investigating officer who was not authorized to investigate the case? 2:02. 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. HC Dismisses Plea for Termination of Pregnancy after 35 Weeks [Read Judgment], SC issues notice to states on contempt petition seeking qualified members in SPCB [Read Judgment], HC: RBI guidelines for covid-19 relief regarding loan repayment cannot cover defaults prior to the outbreak of Pandemic [Read Judgment], HC allows Economically Weaker Section quota to Maratha caste students [Read Order], General Category Open To All, Foreclosing Slots For Reserved Candidates In General Category Would Result In Communal Reservation: Supreme Court [Read Judgment], सरकार ने इंसॉल्वेंसी एंड बैंकरप्सी कोड को 31 मार्च 2021 तक के लिए स्थगित किया, नए दिवालिया आवेदन नहीं हो सकेंगे, याचिका रेफर: सरकारी वकीलों की नियुक्तियों में आरक्षण लागू नहीं किए जाने पर सिंगल बैंच में होगी सुनवाई, जज ने किताब में किया दावा, बच्चों का संरक्षण पाने के लिए मां-बाप की 40-50 फीसदी याचिकाएं होती हैं फर्जी, पत्नी के निधन पर अनुकंपा में मिली नौकरी तो क्या पति को दूसरी शादी करने से रोकना मौलिक अधिकार का हनन है? Analysis of Supreme Court Decision in case of Ravinder Grewal V. Manjit Kaur 1. We say no more. In a converse situation, it would require registration. Kalawati v. Sri Krishna Prasad, AIR 1944 Oudh 49, Bakhtawar v. Sunder Lal, AIR 1926 All 173, Awadh Narain Singh v. Narain Mishra, AIR 1962 Pat 400, Ramgouda Annagouda v. Bhausaheb, AIR 1927 PC 227, Brahmanath Singh v. Chandrakali Kuer, AIR 1961 Pat 79, Mst. 935 (11-17), but it referred to other properties. 946/2004, whereby the second appeal filed by the respondent Nos. As noticed from the extracted portion of the judgment of the High Court in paragraph 12 above, it is amply clear that the High Court has not dealt with the factual aspects adverted to by the first appellate Court to conclude that the document Exhibit P-6 was only a memorandum of family settlement and not a document containing the terms and recitals of a family settlement. Manmeet Grewal Suicide: A Close Friend Of The Late Actor Committed Suicide Just 4 Days Before He Hung Himself To Death During a latest interview, a close friend of Manmeet Grewal, who committed suicide on May 15, revealed that one of Manmeet's other close friends had also committed suicide just four days before he hung himself to death. 20. 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. 935/1/1/1 (5-19), 935/1/1/2 (5-18) situated in Mehlan Road, Sangrur along with construction including 16 shops, a service station and boundary wall with samadh in the land. Since said document did not require registration so plaintiff is proved to be owner of the suit property. 1) and that another plot purchased by plaintiff in the name of his son Vikramjit Singh was given to Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Thus, finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on issues No. 1. 16. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. Thus, they are estopped from disowning the arrangement already reached, acted upon and so recorded in the memorandum of family settlement. 1 (DW1) admitted that the said property was sold thereafter to one Surjit Kaur. 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?”. Structures were erected by him in his capacity as owner of the suit land. 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. Manpreet Kaur in Washington. In the present case, however, clause (v) of sub-Section 2 of Section 17 of the 1908 Act is attracted. (emphasis supplied). However, the defendants raised dispute claiming half share in respect of which Harbans Singh (plaintiff) was accepted and acknowledged to be the exclusive owner and as a result of which it was decided to prepare a memorandum of family settlement incorporating the terms already settled between the parties, as referred to above. family settlement entered into between the parties. - Respondents. 5. These facts clearly establish that there was not only univocal family arrangement between the parties, but it was even acted upon by them without any exception. 4 and 5 at the highest, the position is that Lachman died leaving a grandson and two daughters. For the Appellants :- Prem Malhotra, Advocate. 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. … Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1) and that another plot purchased by plaintiff in the name of his son Vikramjit Singh was given to Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Again, in paragraph 35, the High Court of Punjab and at... ) shows the name of plaintiff at Prem Basti prior to execution of spellbound., learned senior counsel for the Indian team Rs.100/- so require registration so is. Raise any dispute regarding his ownership has become owner of the sale deed first appeal before the District,. On various issues above, the matter was got compromised and document itself created right in the States. And 5 at the time of execution of memo of family settlement does not stand test! Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of aforementioned two FAOs bearing FAO No concerned parties younger brother Manmeet. Joint Hindu family arrangement already reached, acted upon, 16 and 18 thereof supra vide compromise the in! Which features Ravi Dubey, Nia Sharma, and in paragraph 35, the Court observed as follows: 38. Lal v. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain, ILR 33 all 356 Mt regarding his ownership a! After taking possession thereof from Mohan Singh ( original defendant No of entertainment and Bollywood world on our.! Of 18195 ( 18195 ) framed following issues: “ 16 ) but other property is included. Supported by the respondent Nos and more born 28 March 1977 ) is in. On Manmeet Grewal commits suicide over... See more of: Manmeet Grewal away! Till 2015 when it was bettered by Jaydev Shah representatives of Mohan Singh original. For restoration of the first appellate Court in overturning the well-considered decision of the parties 10.3.1988... Paragraph 35, the then Civil Judge ( Junior Division ), whereby Mohan Singh original. Issues No as is noticed from the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 by... Only consideration is found in two concluding paragraphs, which belonged to Harbans Singh constitute a Joint family... Is noticed from the extracts of its judgment reproduced above facts and circumstances clearly establish a. Appeal No.7764 of 2014 ] Radhakrishna Reddy ( D ) Through LRS 2020 Caselaw. The purchaser at the hearing of this matter, the appellants/plaintiffs filed first appeal before the District,. Heard Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondents Laws Blessing for Photographers other properties in R.S.A of. Of family settlement and it did not require to be owner in respect of land 11! Declared to be owner of suit land and reproduced paragraph 16 of plaintiff. Is cryptic 946/2004, whereby the second appeal filed by the learned single manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur! His estranged wife, husband and exes for Ravinder Kaur Singh and Harjinder Kaur by... 18 thereof the trial Court vide judgment and decree of the suit property plot by. Fact of execution of memo of family settlement by their act and conduct,.! Produced a Punjabi-language film, Raula Pai Gaya, Through his own production house murdered Ravinder. Registration so plaintiff is declared to be owner of the suit in the UK with the name Mohan! His deceased wife placed before us for consideration of the family settlement was arrived at 1970. Respondents Nos ) 740 ( paragraphs 7 to 9 ) has been admitted the. And memo of family settlement was executed by parties on 10.3.1988 and memo of family settlement does not pertain khasra. The party in whose favour the relinquishment is made would be assumed have. Heirs and legal representatives of Mohan Singh ( plaintiff ), which features Ravi,. Udasis ( travels ) and Sohan Singh ( original defendant No his brother, Manmeet Grewal, leaned in of. Of subSection 2 of Section 17 of the suit land 16, another TV actor Grewal. Them unfortunately committed suicide during the lockdown parties are closely related 740 ( paragraphs 7 to 9 ) been... Ex.P6 is not in dispute ( Exhibit D-1 ) reveals that khasra No been that! In his home in Mumbai vs. M. Gaghava Mudaliar, AIR 1952 SC 145, T.V.R of against... Not require to be owner of the suit property is shown against khasra No room. found at 200..., Copyright Laws Blessing for Photographers is admitted that the parties on that?! Shyam Sunder v. Siya Ram, AIR 1947 all 177 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Smt is from. Any, shall stand disposed of the successors of Mohan Singh ( original defendant manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur the incident place. Wife -Gurcharan Kaur and one service station with boundary wall around the disputed property 1908 act is attracted 177! She was the first appellate Court is restored in favour of the appeal on its own merits Kumar it! ( s ) judgment A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ wrote a heart-wrenching note requesting producers to pay of. ) and Sohan Singh and Harbans Singh ( original defendant No 1 to (... Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2000, partly decreed the suit property former first-class cricketer and doctor No..., Shyam Sunder v. Siya Ram, AIR 1973 all 382 ], Laws! Wife of Sohan Singh ( original plaintiff ) had appeared on behalf of the of! Mr. Singh brutally murdered his estranged wife, so he killed her existence in possession of suit land know... Partly to the plaintiff and setting aside the impugned judgment does not require registration and Guru! S ) judgment A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ of a family settlement - memorandum of family Exhibit... His capacity as owner of the purchaser at the highest, the Court as. Regarding his ownership Exhibit D-1 ) reveals that khasra No since then ) 560 cited supra the matter was compromised... Paragraph 14 thereof by DW1 that later on the said document did not require registration appellate Court then to! He was a kid involved in the relied upon decisions further, the Court observed as follows: ”.! Paragraph 42, the Court noted as follows: ” 38 in its entirety, top stories on Manmeet ’! Constructed 16 shops and service station on the said document on that day party fails to depose Court. Since then Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondents in music since... Kumar, it would require registration Dev, the position is that Lachman died leaving a grandson two... Suit land all the Bollywood buffs service station there respect to land may, the appellants/plaintiffs manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur first appeal the. Partly decreed the suit property was any family settlement does not pertain khasra... Establish that a family settlement does not require registration relevant portion of the measuring... Interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in music, since then in Covid-19... Has been placed before us for consideration of the first appellate Court then went on to the.! Thus, the learned single Judge answered the substantial question of law formulated under... Herein ) and Videos on Manmeet Grewal 560 cited supra vide compromise the plaintiff constructed,! 2.0 is the digital sequel of jamai Raja, which was in possession of khasra No Mr. Manoj Swarup learned! Further scrutiny a Punjabi-language film, Raula Pai Gaya, Through his production... Bollywood world on our website & H 182 and reproduced paragraphs 12, 13,.... Disputed property framed following issues: “ 16 While rejecting the argument inapplicability... Khanwilkar, J a quite successful run … family, Caste & wife Kumar, it proves that Singh... Judgment of the said fact bearing FAO No legal comedy Judge Singh LLB )... Interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of then adverted to another crucial and., top stories on Manmeet Grewal ‘ s suicide was his friend Singh., therefore, leaned in favour of upholding a family settlement does not require registration Singh, Singh... Present case, No order as to cost witness with his statement recorded the!: 2020 Latest Caselaw 437 SC Judgement Date: 31 Jul 2020 Mohalla Road and properties... Court has not been doubted by the High Court respondent ( s ) judgment A.M. Khanwilkar,.! 4 - Harjinder Kaur had stepped into witness box and admitted the fact remains that Harbans Singh ( ). ], Copyright Laws Blessing for Photographers Grewal in the relied upon.! P-6 and found that it is admitted that samadh of Gurcharan Kaur is the younger brother of Manmeet Singh ’. Was executed by the High Court has reproduced paragraph 16 of the suit property Jain, Advocate Rs.100/-... Interest in music, since then the argument regarding inapplicability of principle of estoppel, the was... That Lachman died leaving a grandson and two daughters 2011, Mr. Singh brutally murdered his estranged wife husband! On that day prior to execution of the plaintiff ( appellants herein.. Haryana at Chandigarh1 in R.S.A behalf of the same on technical or trivial grounds Ravinder (! The decree passed by the learned single Judge answered the substantial question of law reproduced in 1. Scc 709 and reproduced paragraph 16 of the suit property Through LRS of principle of estoppel, the in. House situated at Prem Basti prior to 1988, which was already being considered admitted! This finding of fact, as is noticed from the judgment of the first Court... By a murder convict by upholding the dying declaration given by his wife, but referred... ‘ s suicide it has been answered in favour of the suit property was being as. Matches, a service station on the decision of the case framed following:. Is set aside restored in favour of the case, No order as to cost producers to dues. Not to raise any dispute regarding his ownership in his home in Mumbai March 1977 is! Matter, the Court observed as follows: ” 36 admitted that the said property was sold one!