Delhi High Court: In an interim application by the plaintiff seeking judgment/decree in her favour in a partition suit filed for partition, permanent injunction, and rendition of accounts against her son-defendant in respect of the suit property, a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that the plaintiff, as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘Succession Act’), did not qualify to inherit any property of which her mother-in-law was the sole owner. It was also held that the plaintiff would be entitled to a 25 percent share in the suit property through the relinquishment deed made in her favour by her daughter which would be treated as a gift deed.
Background
The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition against her son claiming a 50 percent share in the suit property that she had inherited from her mother-in-law who was the sole and absolute owner of the suit property.
The plaintiff’s mother-in-law had entered into a Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 13-05-1998 with her two sons, daughter, and husband wherein the suit property was agreed to be included in the share of the plaintiff’s husband.
The husband of the plaintiff passed away on 12-09-2000, leaving behind the plaintiff, the defendant, and one daughter as legal heirs. The daughter had already executed a relinquishment deed relinquishing her share in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant.
The plaintiff had filed the instant application seeking the judgment/decree of the suit in her favour based on the admissions. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant and his wife had been harassing the plaintiff and were beating her in old age for which the plaintiff made various complaints.
The defendant contested the present application by saying that the suit was an endeavor by the plaintiff to grab the suit property since she only had a right to reside and no legal right, title, or interest in the suit property which is why the plaintiff was not entitled to any partition. It was also submitted that the relief sought by the plaintiff was barred under Sections 34, 41(h), 41(i), and 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 since she had not sought any relief of declaration of her rights in her favour.
The defendant also submitted that the settlement deed on which the plaintiff had relied was not a legal document and held no evidentiary value since it was inadequately stamped and was only notarized. Moreover, it was contended that since the husband of the plaintiff passed away during the lifetime of his mother who died intestate, the suit property devolved upon the sons and daughters of the pre-deceased children, and that the plaintiff did not inherit any share since she was the daughter-in-law of the owner of the property.
Analysis and Decision
After perusing the records, the Court referred to Vijay Myne v. Satya Bhushan Kaura, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 828 wherein it was observed that the purpose of Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is to render speedy judgments and save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial and it was to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment based on an admission when the admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to get the decree.
While applying the principles laid down in Sahu Madho Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 42 (‘Sahu Madho Das’) and Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119, the Court stated that it was abundantly clear that the plaintiff’s mother-in-law was the exclusive owner of the suit property.
After considering the details of the settlement deed to ascertain the true nature of the document, the Court stated that if the deed is accepted as an intention and instrument to transfer the shares in the name of the respective members, then it was a document creating rights in the immovable property which could not have been effected by way of the unregistered settlement deed.
The Court mentioned that such a transfer required compulsory registration and that the settlement deed was only a notarized document that could not have the effect of creating interest, right, or title in favour of the two sons. Thus, the Court held that the settlement deed was not a document of transfer.
Further, the Court stated that the settlement deed was a document like a will and that it satisfied all the ingredients of a will under Section 2(h) of the Succession Act, 1925. The Court stated that even after considering the document as a will, the plaintiff may not get any benefit as per Section 105 of the Succession Act, 1925, since the plaintiff’s husband, the beneficiary of the document, predeceased his mother and the document did not stipulate as to on whom the suit property would devolve in such a case.
The Court noted that since the suit property was owned by a woman, it must devolve as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Succession Act, according to which, the property firstly devolves upon the sons and daughters (including the sons and daughters of the deceased children) and the husband. Further, the Court placed reliance on Sachidhanandam v. E. Vanaja, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1448 to hold that the plaintiff would not inherit any property in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Succession Act.
The Court referred to Sahu Madho Das (supra) and Hari Kapoor v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11153 wherein it was held that a share cannot be released in favour of one who has no rights in the property as a co-owner. Reference was also made by the Court to other cases to state that 50 percent of the daughter’s share in the property could not be relinquished in favour of the plaintiff, as was done through the relinquishment deed, since the plaintiff was never a co-owner in the suit property.
Thus, the Court held that, to the extent of the share transferred to the plaintiff, the relinquishment deed shall be considered as a gift deed executed by the daughter in favour of her mother, and the plaintiff was entitled to 25 percent of the suit property through this registered document.
Finally, while passing a preliminary decree of partition, the Court directed that since the relinquishment deed which had been interpreted as a gift deed was not sufficiently stamped, the party in possession of the original deed must file the same with the Joint Registrar within seven days who shall impound and forward the deed to the Registrar of Stamps for payment of the deficit stamp duty and return the stamped document to this Court within three months.
The Court’s view on Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
While disposing of the case, the Court said that the rules of succession as mentioned in Section 15 of the Succession Act do not treat the pre-deceased son or daughter at par with the surviving son and daughter as a consequence of which, a widowed daughter-in-law, despite being a member of her matrimonial family, gets no protection of property and is vulnerable to being shown the door by her own children at an age when she actually needs the security of property..
The Court went on to say that the instant matter is demonstrative as to how Section 15(1) of the Succession Act, a provision made to recognize the rights of women, unfortunately, works against the woman herself. The Court further stated that this was an anomaly in the legislation, which needed rectification.
The matter would next be listed on 03-09-2024 for consideration of final decree.
[Rekha Oberoi v. Amit Oberoi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4137, Decided on 14-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Plaintiff — Advocate Neeraj Gupta
For Defendant — Advocate Sanjay Rathi, Advocate Nirmala Rathi, Advocate Jaanvi Rathi, Advocate Deepak Khatri
