Recently, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of courts striving to thoroughly resolve and determine the rightful claims and shares of the involved parties. They should actively seek to prevent the need for multiple legal proceedings or sending parties back into a new cycle of litigation.
A bench consisting of Justices Aniruddha Bose and S V N Bhatti has granted approval to an appeal filed by Vikrant Kapila and additional parties, overturning the division bench order of the Delhi High Court concerning a suit property located in the upscale New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
In the case, the court noted the Single Judge in terms of discretionary jurisdiction under Order XII, Rule 6, read with Order XV, Rule 1 of the CPC, passed a decree without conducting a trial.
Further, the Court disapproved of the single judge's conclusion due to conflicting statements made by the defendants regarding the existence and possession of the will.
"We record that a decree has been passed, and it does not appear merely as a preliminary decree, but rather appears to be both, i.e., preliminary and final in more than one sense.''
''We notice that the inference drawn by the Single Judge where a case for a Judgment and Decree on admission is made out, suffers from serious legal flaws.'' the bench said.
Subsequently, the division bench confirmed the order by the single judge bench, as it proceeded on the premise that the Will of November 18, 1999 is not disputed, and an interpretation of clauses in the Will arises for consideration.
The appellants argued that the courts made a significant legal error by rendering a judgment and issuing a decree based on Order XII, Rule 6, in conjunction with Order XV of the CPC. This is because the primary issue under consideration was whether the suit for the partition of the property, which belonged to the late Sheila Kapila, occurred through inheritance or testamentary succession
The appellants contended that unless there is a clear admission on the existence of the Will, which is substantiated by interpreting the clauses within the will, a judgment based on such admission is not permissible. Since the contesting parties did not make a clear and categorical admission regarding the presence of the will, the assumption of its existence in the challenged judgments is unlawful. Consequently, the findings are unsustainable and run counter to established judicial discretion.
On the contrary, the plaintiff, said parties in the Suit for partition are fairly aged and that the Judgment on admission by the Single Judge cannot be faulted with on any ground.
In response to this argument, the bench emphasized that the rationale behind the legal scrutiny of an admission lies in the fact that a judgment based on an admission not only precludes the right to a trial on that specific issue but also eliminates the opportunity for appeal. As a result, the discretion to make a judgment based on admission within a legal pleading must be exercised with careful consideration and objectivity.
"The foundation of the claim in the opposing parties can be summarised as intestate succession on one side and testamentary succession on the other. The plaint averments principally proceed for partition of Suit Property as co-sharers, but the Judgments impugned have laid emphasis on the interpretation of the Will, holding that the children of Late Sheila Kapila are entitled to the Suit Property as absolute owners and a decree for partition in four equal shares could be made," it said.
The bench noticed that the division bench had straightaway assumed the existence of the Will and proceeded with interpreting the clauses in the Will.
"We notice the said approach begs the question and leaves more questions than answers. For the reasons already discussed, the decree and Judgment dated 10.05.2023 and 11.10.2022 are interfered with and set aside," the bench said.
In the context of permitting the sale of the property in question without first obtaining a Preliminary Decree in accordance with Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893, the bench has sent the case back to the single judge. The single judge is instructed to establish the key legal issues and provide the involved parties with a chance to present their arguments and evidence during a trial before rendering a judgment.
The court asked the Single Judge to dispose of the matter on demand as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Case Title: VIKRANT KAPILA AND ANOTHER vs. PANKAJA PANDA AND OTHERS
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy