Jugal Kishore Khanna(D)Thr Lrs vs Sudhir Khanna

INTRODUCTION

The case of Jugal Kishore Khanna(D)Thr Lrs vs Sudhir Khanna involves a dispute of property between 2 families, which were Shri Roop Kishore Khanna also referred in the case as RKK (appellant) and Shri Attar Chand Khanna also referred as ACK (respondent) in the case. The common ancestor of these parties Shri Tek Chand Khanna herein referred to as TCK left 2 properties one Kamla Nagar, New Delhi and the other in Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. The main component of this case is the dispute on the Kamla Nagar property. ACK claimed that the property of RCK i.e. property of Kamla Nagar also belonged to them under the guise of joint family property descendants claim that this dispute over Kamla nagar property was settled already in 1979 through a payment of Rs.55,000 by RKK.The decedents of ACK denied this settlement and went to trial court. The trial court gave the judgement in favour of ACK leading RKK to file an appeal in the High Court. High court in its judgement gave it in favour of RKK.Not satisfied by this judgement ACK filed an appeal in Supreme Court of India.

This case will explore how courts deal with long time property disputes and the complexity that arises due to lack of proper document evidence. This case shows ingenuity of the court when faced with the challenge of complete lack of proper document and having solely rely on oral evidence.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The narrative begins with Late Shri Tek Chand Khanna (TCK), the father of both RKK and ACK. It appears that TCK bestowed properties upon his sons. A key point of contention surrounds the Kamla Nagar property. While purchased in 1941 by RKK in their father’s name, the appellants, descendants of RKK, maintain that the funds for the purchase originated from RKK and the family business. This stance is contested by the respondents, successors of ACK, who argue that the property belonged to the joint family.
2. The Malcha Marg property presents another layer of complexity. Acquired by RKK and subsequently developed by the family, the appellants assert that, similar to Kamla Nagar, it was financed through RKK and the family’s commercial endeavours.
3. The year 1978 marks a turning point in the story. Following RKK’s passing, ACK laid claim to a share of the Kamla Nagar property, asserting its status as joint family property. In a purported attempt to settle the dispute amicably, the appellants allege that an oral agreement was reached in 1979. According to their account, a sum of ₹55,000 was paid to ACK’s successors in exchange for relinquishing their claim on Kamla Nagar.
4. However, upon ACK’s demise in 1983, a different chapter unfolded. His successors initiated legal proceedings, filing separate suits for partition for both the Kamla Nagar and Malcha Marg properties.
5. The initial judicial verdict arrived at the Trial Court in 2008. The Court sided with the appellants in the Kamla Nagar dispute, rejecting the claim from ACK’s successors. However, regarding the Malcha Marg property, the Court ruled in Favor of the respondents as the appellants were unable to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the use of joint family funds for its purchase.
6. Both parties challenged the Trial Court’s decision. The respondents appealed the dismissal of their claim on Kamla Nagar, while the appellants contested the unfavourable ruling concerning Malcha Marg. These appeals were filed with the High Court in 2008.
7. The High Court issued its judgement in 2013. In a significant reversal, the Court upheld the respondents’ appeal regarding Kamla Nagar, awarding them a share in the property. On the other hand, the Court maintained the Trial Court’s decision on Malcha Marg.
8. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s verdict, the case has now reached the Supreme Court of India. The forthcoming judgement from the apex court will determine the ultimate ownership of both Kamla Nagar and Malcha Marg properties.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Kamla Nagar property belonged to the respondent or the appellant?
2. Whether the Oral settlement between the two families were valid or not?
3. Whether the burden of proof falls on the respondent or not?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The appealing argued that that bought the kamala nagar property from respondent fairly through the settlement made in 1979 by paying Rs.55.000 to them through cheques and this was equitable proof that the appealing use the Rs.55,000 amount to buy the property only and nothing else.it showed their claim on it.
2. Throughout all the trails of this case not once any argument by respondent was made regarding either rent or ownership of the Kamla nagar property to the appellant showing that they had no issues in regards to sale of property. Which meant that respondent accepted that appellant was the true owner of the property.
3. Appellant also argued that since the value of property has increased since the time of settlement in 1979 as evidence from the tax return of respondent between the years 1964-1967.It was clear that the sale of Kamal nagar property for Rs.55,000 was justified.
4. Appellant pointed that for a long they had been the possessor of this kamala nagar property and had been using it since th4en but not once was there any objection regarding their use was raised by the respondent showing that they didn’t value the property.
5. No issue or objection was raised in regards to Malcha Marg property. The decision of the lower court was accepted.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The respondent argued based on the statement of witness of appellant that there was no evaluation of the property and also that since witnesses themselves stated that there were no written documents, thus the appellants claim of purchasing property at Rs.55,000 cannot be proved.
2. Due to lack of any proper document or proof showing that appellant had purchased the kamala nagar property, appellant did not own it. They argued that since all the documents appellant submitted were very vague in nature and thus cannot be used to proof the claim apelet is making.
3. The respondent argued that in registration act any property having value over Rs.100 should be registered and since appellant didn’t make their payment for registration, they didn’t have any legal claim over the kamala nagar property.
4. The respondent argued that since appellant didn’t take any rent from the property despite claiming it was also their property shows that they never had a claim or right over this property otherwise they would have exercised it.
5. The respondent supported the decision of the trial court in regards to Malchan Marg property.

JUDGEMENT

When the first time the case was presented to the court, which was the trail court, its decision was given in favour of appellant (RKK) instead of respondent (ACK). Basically, the Kamla nagar property was given to the decedents of RKK but they couldn’t secure the ownership of Malchan Marg property went to ACK.After appealing to High Court the ownership of the Kamala Nagar property was changed with now ACK becoming the owner of 50 percent to the property. For the Malchan Marg property the High Court was of the same opinion of that of trial court and kept ACK have it.

Finally, the case came to Supreme Court the Malchan Marg property was allowed in the complete ownership of ACK. When it came the Kamala Nagar property RKK decedents got back their property. The reasoning for Court’s decision was that they considered the payment of Rs.55,000 was enough. The court stated the amount paired by RKK was enough considering the increase in value the property admirer the court said the RKK didn’t need to pay the lump sum amount to ACK since despite High Courts decision ACK was only owner of half of the property. Final the Supreme Court’s decision was also influenced by the lack of rent collection from ACK despite claiming ownership. 

ANALYSIS

This case is a property dispute with a lack of evidence. The decision of the court was mainly based on the oral evidence provided by RKK descendants and the principle of natural justice. For Malchan Marg the court unfortunately couldn’t do anything as there was no evidence to support the case. But when it comes to Kamala Nagar property there was enough evidence to give the judgement in favour of RKK.one of the key factors in Indian Justice System is the willingness to get remedy for rights.in this case ACK refused to properly utilize their rights like going to collect rent etc. This failure to exercise their right and believe that they can just abuse their rights lead to ACK losing the case.  

The apex court ensured that all parties were given their fair share. The  apex court the money ACK got from RKK was enough because the increase in value of property, based on this principal court reached to the conclusion that ACK not having Kamala Nagar property was fair

CONCLUSION

The case of Jugal Kishore Khanna(D)Thr Lrs vs Sudhir Khanna involves a dispute of property between 2 families, which were Shri Roop Kishore Khanna also referred in the case as RKK (appellant) and Shri Attar Chand Khanna also referred as ACK (respondent) in the case. The common ancestor of these parties Shri Tek Chand Khanna herein referred to as TCK left 2 properties one Kamla Nagar, New Delhi and the other in Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. The main component of this case is the dispute on the Kamla Nagar property. ACK claimed that the property of RCK i.e. property of Kamla Nagar also belonged to them. This case will explore the how court deal with long time property dispute and the complexity that arises due to lack of proper document evidence. This case shows ingenuity of the court when faced with the challenge of complete lack of proper document and having solely rely on oral evidence.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48963712/ 
2. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=17387 

This Article is written by Ritvik student of Law at SGT University; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin