1982 (5) TMI 196 - HC - Indian Laws

Court validates marriage, determines property shares, and modifies inheritance rights in family dispute

The court rejected the limitation objection, validated Bimla Devi's marriage to Nanak Chand, affirmed sons' right to demand partition during the father's ... - Issues Involved:1. Limitation of the suit.2. Validity of Bimla Devi's marriage.3. Right of sons to demand partition during the father's lifetime.4. Determination of joint family property.5. Liability for accounting and division of assets.Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation of the Suit:The primary issue was whether the suit filed for partition was within the limitation period. The court rejected the objection, stating that the right to sue did not accrue until the defendant infringed or threatened to infringe the plaintiffs' right. The plaintiffs had averred that it was in 1968 and afterwards that the defendant began to infringe their rights. The court concluded that the suit was not barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, as the right to sue accrued when the defendant clearly and unequivocally threatened to infringe the plaintiffs' rights.2. Validity of Bimla Devi's Marriage:The plaintiffs contended that Bimla Devi's marriage to Nanak Chand was invalid due to her previous undissolved marriage. The court disagreed with the single judge's finding, holding that the first marriage was not properly performed, thus invalid. The court found that Bimla Devi legally married Nanak Chand, and her sons were entitled to a share in the partition.3. Right of Sons to Demand Partition During Father's Lifetime:The court affirmed that under Mitakshara Law, a son could claim partition of joint Hindu family property during his father's lifetime, dismissing the contention that such a right was not available in Delhi.4. Determination of Joint Family Property:- Shares: The court upheld the finding that shares acquired between 1918 and 1949 were joint family property, as they could not have been purchased solely from Nanak Chand's personal income.- Deposits and Bank Accounts: The court agreed with the single judge that the fixed deposit of Rs. 15,000 with Goodwill India Ltd. was joint family property, while the deposit of Rs. 10,000 in United Commercial Bank was not proved to belong to the joint family.- Plots: The court upheld the finding that plots in Shalimar Garden and Mehrauli were self-acquired properties of Nanak Chand.- Needle Boxes: The court agreed that 31 needle boxes were joint family property, rejecting the claim that they belonged to Bhagwati Devi.- Ornaments and Jewellery: The court found no evidence to support the existence of joint family jewellery.- Scooter: The court upheld the finding that the Vespa scooter was joint family property.5. Liability for Accounting and Division of Assets:- Marriage Expenses: The court found the amount of Rs. 25,000 for the marriage expenses of daughters reasonable and rejected the appellants' objection.- Sale of House No. 3895: The court agreed that in the absence of misappropriation allegations, the sale proceeds were presumed to be used for the family's benefit.- Accounting for Shares: The court upheld the direction that plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 were liable to account for shares held since May 1963, including accretions and dividends.- Interest on Transferred Shares: The court agreed that plaintiffs were liable to pay interest at 6% per annum on the sale consideration of transferred shares.Final Judgment:The court dismissed the appeal and cross-objections, modifying the shares of the members to 1/7th each instead of 1/4th each.