Holding

The plaintiffs have no share in the property as the family settlement award gave no share to them; the High Court’s decree is set aside.

Summary

Chander Mohan gifted a house to his nephew Gian Chand in 1937 and later sued to cancel the gift. The dispute was referred to arbitration, resulting in a family settlement award that was accepted by the court, granting Chander Mohan a life‑time right of enjoyment, Gian Chand and the sons of Mohinder Mohan each one‑third share, and the remaining one‑third to Tarawati with a life interest. The widow (Rama Devi) and son (Rabindra) of Chander Mohan later sued for a two‑thirds share and partition. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the award void and the gift operative, but the High Court reversed and awarded them one‑third share. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the award was a valid family settlement that gave no share to the plaintiffs, so they could not claim any interest; however, the widow was allowed to reside in the house for her lifetime without title. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court decree and restoring the trial court’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the widow and son of Chander Mohan have any share in the house under the arbitration award and the original gift.
Whether the arbitration award constituting a family settlement is void and whether the original gift remains valid.
Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the partition suit was correct.
Whether the widow is entitled to life‑time residence in the house without title.

Legislation cited

Partition Act, 1893

Subjects

PartitionFamily settlementGift of propertyArbitration awardLife interestSuccessionCivil appeal

Judgment

A GIAN CHAND KAPUR (DEAD) BY LRS.
v.
RABINDRA MOHAN KAPUR & ORS.

DECEMBER 3, 1986
B
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]

Partition Act, 1893 - Suit.for partition of house-Family settlement on
the basis of an award grounded upon compromise-No share given to plaintiff
in suit-Plaintiff not entitled to share in property.

. C Chander Mohan made a gift of the hom1e in dispute in favour of Gyan
Chand, but later on he filed a suit for cancellation of the gift. The suit was -i- ·
referred to the arbitrator who made his award, which was accepted by the Court
and a decree followed. Under the decree Chander Mohan got a right of
enjoyment during his life time. Gyan Chand anCI the sons of Mohinder Mohan,
D another brother of Chander Mohan, together got one-third share each. The
remaining one-third share went to the daughter of Chander Mohan with life
interest and after her, absolutely to her son.

Later the three sons ofMahinder Mohan filed a suit asking for exclusive
possession of their one-third share in the disputed house. Finally, the High
E · Court held that they were not entitled to a share in the property.

The widow and son of Chander Mohan filed a suit claiming two-third
shares in the property and for partitioning thereof. The trial Court dismissed
the suit holding that the award was void and the 1~ft operated and since under it,
no share was given to them, they had no right to sue for partition. However, in
appeal, the High Court found that they had onMhird share and decreed their
F
claim to that extent.

Allowing the appeal of Gyan Chand Ka1•oor (Defendant no. 1),
•
HELD: 1. The High Court was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs had a
share in the property. In the very first litigation it'elfthe decree was in the nature
G
of a family settlement on the basis of an award grounded upon compromise.
There was no justification to hold that the gift which constituted the title in
respect of the subject matter of the house, were separate from one another;
equally fallacious was the view of the trial Court that notwithstanding the
compromise, the award and the decree, the gift still remained valid as it has not
H · been set aside. [ 400E - F]

398
G.C. KAPUR (DEAD) BY L.R.S. v. R.M. KAPUR 399

2. Admittedly, under the gift or in.the compromise and the award no A
share had been given to the present plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the
plaintiffs could not claiDJ any share in the property. [400G]

3. Rama Devi, widow of Chander Mohan, is allowed to live during her
life time in the house in dispute without title to the property. [40IB - CJ
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 558 of 1973

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.1972 of the Delhi High Court in
- .~ RF.A. No. 36-D of 1962.

A.B. Rohtagi and B.P. Maheshwari for the Appellant. c
O.P. Verma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
/
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by certificate is by defendant
No. l and is directed against the reversing decree of the High Court in a suit for
partition of a house and other related reliefs. The trial Court had dismissed the
suit but the High Court has found that the plaintiffs were entitled to one-third
share as against ·two-thirds claimed by them and bas given a decree for it.
Defendant No. l who maintains that the plaintiffs have no interest in the suit
E
house has challenged the appellate decree.

Admittedly the house in dispute belonged to Chander Mohan. On
29.6.193.7 he made a gift of it in favour of Gian Chand, son of his brother but on
8.12.1937 filed a suit for canoellation of the gift. That suit was referred to the
/
arbitration of the plaintiffs Advocate by an application dated 31.5.1938 and the
~. F
Arbitrator made his award on 20.6.1938 on the basis of a compromise between
; the parties which he treated as a family settlement. The award was acoepted by
the Court on the same day and a decree followed.

Under the decree, Chander Mohan 5ot a right of enjoyment during his
life-time. Gian Chand (Defendant No. l) an<J the sons of Mohinder Mohan,
another brother of Chander Mohan together got one-third share·each. The G
remaining one-third share went to Tarawati, daughter of the donor from the
deoeased wife with life interest and after her, absolutely to her son.

A-second round of litigation in respect of the porperty started with the
suit in June 1953 by the three sbns of Mohinder Mohan asking for exclusive
H
possession of their one-third share in the house and for accounting. After a
400 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R.

chequered career, this litigation received a final seal by the judgment of the High
A Court iri R.S.A. No. 61-D of 1958. The High Court held thatthethreeplaintiffs
were not entitled to a share in the property.

Soon after the disposal of the second round of litigation, Rama Devi and
her son Rabindra claiming to be widow and son respectively of Chander ·
B Mohan filed• a suit claiming two-thirds share in the property and for
partitioning thereof along with other ancillary reliefs. The trial Court dismissed
the suit by finding: ·

-'--L Rama Devi was wife of Chander Mohan and Rabindra is -
their son;

c 2. The judgment of the High Court in the second round of
. litigation did not bar the present claim; ·

3. The award was void and the gift operated and since under it,
no share was given to the plaintiffs, they had no right to sue for
D ( partition.

The High Court did not agree with the trial Court that the award was bad
and the gift ·operated. It found that the plaintiffs had one-third share and
decreed the claim to that extent. This appeal by defendant No. 1 is against this
reversing decree.
E
The High C~urt, in our opinion, was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs
had a share in the property. In the very first litigation itself the decree was in the
· nature of a family settlement on the basis of an award grounded upon
compromise. There is no justification to hold that the gift which constituted the
title in respect of the subject-matter thereof, namely, the house, were separate
F _- from one another; equally fallacious was the view of the trial Court- that·
notwithstanding the compromise, the award and the-decree, the _gift still
remained valid as it has not been set aside. A<llnittedly under the gift or in the
!'Ompromise and the award no share had been given to the present plaintiffs. In
such circumstances, the plaintiffs could(not claim any share in the proiierty.
Reasoning given by the High Court to earve out one-third share in favour of the
G plaintiffs is not tenable in law nor on facts. It is not appropriate at this stage io
examine the correctness of the judgment of the High Court .in the second
appeal By tbiit judgment Mahinder Mohan had lost title to the property.

An affidavit was filed in course of the hearing of the appeal on behalf of
the plaintiffs-respondents to suggest that Vijay Kumar was not the son of .
·,,. H Tarawati. The affidavit which seeks to re-open a question of fact cannot be
G.C. KAPUR (DEAU) BY L.R.S .. v. R.M. KAPUR [MISRA, J.) 401_

accepted at this stage. The plaintiffs have no title and would, therefore, not be A
entitled to one-third share in the house as decreed by the High Court. The
appeal is allowed and the plaintiffs' suit has to be dismissed. We set aside the
judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Trial Court with a direction
that parties shall bear their own costs throughout.

Rama Devi has been found to be the widow of Chander Mohan and B
Ravindra Mohan is the son. The evidence shows that both of them had been
living in this house. We think-it appropriate that Rama Devi should be allowed
to live during her life-time in this house without title to the property. If the
residential portion for Rama Devi is not amicably carved out within six months
from to-day, it will be open to her to apply to the learned trialJudgetocarveout
a reasonable portion of the house for her living during her life-time without C
right of alienation in any manner.

A.P.J. Appeal allowed.