LexJUGAL KISHORE KHANNA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. versus SUDHIR KHANNA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 838 : 2024 INSC 224 Jugal Kishore Khanna (D) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. v. Sudhir Khanna & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1591-1592 of 2020 ) 19 March 2024 [Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in finding without any evidence that the amount alleged to have been paid as the value of share in Joint Hindu Family property is not so but for some other purpose. Headnotes Partition Suit – Predecessors of Appellants and Respondents - the elder (“RKK”) and younger (“ACK”) brother respectively – two properties purchased by RKK – (i) Kamla Nagar property in the name of his father (ii) Malcha Marg property in the name of ACK’s wife and constructed house out of Joint Hindu Family Business, Regal Cinema - After RKK’s death ACK raised claim in Kamla Nagar property – Oral Settlement between Appellants and ACK and value of latter’s share fixed at Rs. 55,000/- (Fifty-five thousand only) – The same was paid – Suit filed by Respondents to partition properties in Kamla Nagar and Shimla- Appellants raised partial partition in respect of Malcha Marg property – Trial Court partly decreed the suit by only allowing the respondents’ claim in Malcha Marg property – Both parties approached High Court with separate Appeals – Both Appeals decided in favour of respondents – Thus, the two instant Appeals. Held: With respect to the Malcha Marg property, the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court that it belonged exclusively to the Respondents was upheld, for lack of evidence to prove that the same was purchased out of joint family funds – Whereas, in regard to the Kamla Nagar property, both Trial Court and High Court, from the evidence on record, found that there was a payment of Rs. 55,000/- (Rupees fifty-five thousand only) by appellants to the predecessor of respondents – It can [2024] 3 S.C.R. 839 Jugal Kishore Khanna (D) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. v. Sudhir Khanna & Ors. also be seen from the evidence that the appellants exclusively enjoyed the property from the date of its purchase, It is also true that the property was let out and rent was collected entirely by appellants – Wealth Tax Returns of ACK from 1964-1967 shows valuation of Kamla Nagar property to be Rs. 38,000/- (Thirty-eight thousand only) – In year 1979, the value ought to have increased to Rs.1,10,000/- (One lakh ten thousand only) – As contended by the appellants, there was nothing on record to indicate that the payment of a hefty sum of Rs. 55,000/- in the year 1979, was for the upkeep of the HUF or on some other account or to fulfil some other purpose but towards value of the half right held by ACK in the property. [Paras 18, 19-21] List of Acts The Registration Act, 1908. List of Keywords Partial partition; Oral settlement. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1591 of 2020 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2013 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.F.A. No.439 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.1592 of 2020 Appearances for Parties Akshay Makhija, Sr. Adv., Arjav Jain, Adarsh Chamoli, Shashank Shekhar, Ronak Baid, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs. for the Appellants. S. C. Singhal, Vibhav Mishra, Ms. Megha Gaur, Parmanand Gaur, Tushar Bakshi, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 840 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”)1 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), wherein the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 in respect of the Kamla Nagar property2, i.e., RFA No.439 of 2008, has been allowed and the appeal filed by the appellants in respect of the Malcha Marg property3, i.e., RFA No.483 of 2008, has been dismissed. FACTS IN BRIEF: 3. The parties are common descendants of Late Shri Tek Chand Khanna (hereinafter referred to as “TCK”), who had two sons, Shri Roop Kishore Khanna (hereinafter referred to as “RKK”) and Shri Attar Chand Khanna (hereinafter referred to as “ACK”). The appellants are descendants of RKK whereas the respondents are the successors of ACK. In the year 1941, RKK purchased a piece of land admeasuring 344 square yards and bearing No.15-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi - 110007 (hereinafter r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.