TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Property not ancestral, suit dismissed. Plaintiff not entitled to partition. Challenge to deeds barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>Mohan Lal Bhatnagar Versus Kamlesh Kumari Bhatnagar and Ors.</h3> The court held that the property was not ancestral and dismissed the suit due to failure to establish ancestral nature and limitation under Article 58 of ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the property in dispute is an ancestral property.2. Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is maintainable.3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition.4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration regarding the Gift Deed and Sale Deed.5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction.6. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected.7. Whether the property in dispute was self-acquired.8. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendants.9. Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi.10. Whether the challenge to the Gift Deed is barred by time.11. Whether the purported Will is legal and binding.12. Whether the alleged settlement is barred by time.13. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.Summary:1. Ancestral Property:The court held that the property was not ancestral as it was purchased by Late Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar through a sale deed dated 26.1.1945, prior to the partition of India in 1947. The compensation received for properties left in Pakistan in 1951 was irrelevant to the purchase of the disputed property.2. Maintainability of Suit:The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish the ancestral nature of the property and the claim was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act 1963.3. Decree of Partition:The plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of partition as the property was self-acquired by Late Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar and validly gifted to Kamlesh Kumari (defendant No. 1).4. Declaration Regarding Gift Deed and Sale Deed:The court upheld the validity of the Gift Deed dated 3.7.1953 and the Sale Deed dated 29.7.2002. The challenge to the Gift Deed was barred by limitation, and the property being self-acquired, Late Sh. Mool Chand had the authority to gift it.5. Decree of Injunction:The plaintiff's claim for an injunction was dismissed as he failed to prove possession or entitlement to any part of the property.6. Rejection of Plaint:The plaint was not liable to be rejected under O 7 Rule 11 CPC as the issues were decided on merits.7. Self-Acquired Property:The property was held to be self-acquired by Late Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar, and thus he had the right to gift it.8. Misjoinder of Defendants:The suit was not dismissed for misjoinder of defendants as the main issues were decided on merits.9. Locus Standi:The plaintiff had no locus standi to challenge the Gift Deed or the Sale Deed as the property was self-acquired and validly transferred.10. Limitation on Gift Deed Challenge:The challenge to the Gift Deed was barred by time, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the deed at least by 13.11.1997, and the suit was filed in July 2003.11. Legality of Will:The purported family settlement dated 13.11.1997 was inadmissible in evidence as it was not registered and sought to partition immovable property.12. Settlement Barred by Time:The alleged settlement was barred by time and inadmissible as it was not registered.13. Relief to Plaintiff:The plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as claimed. The appeal was dismissed with costs in favor of the contesting respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
