Paminder Gujral; Neelu Chawla; Ranju Sayall v. Kiranjit Gujral; Rohun Gujral; Rahil Gujral

JUDGMENT

1. By way of present Application, the plaintiffs seek a Judgment on Admission, for 1/4th share each in all movable properties left by Late Upkar Gujral and Late Mohinder Singh Gujral, along with interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of realization of the amount by the defendants.

2. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have filed the Suit for Partition, possession, rendition of accounts, and for perpetual and mandatory injunction. Prior to the present Suit, the defendants had instituted a Suit i.e. C.S. (OS) No. 21/2013 Kiranjit Gujral Ors. Vs. Paminder Paul for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. In the present suit, plaintiffs No. 1 to 3, i.e. Paminder Singh Gujral, Neelu Chawla, Ranju Sayall and defendant No. 1, Kiranjit Singh Gujral are children of Late Mrs. Upkar Gujral and Late Mr. Mohinder Singh Gujral. Defendant No. 2, Rohun Gujral and defendant No.3, Rahil Gujral are the sons of defendant No. 1. The family tree is as follows:

4. Late Mrs. Upkar Gujral died on 08.10.2004, pre-deceased her husband, and executed a will dated 21.07.1995, bequeathing all her movable and immovable properties in favour of her husband, Late Mr. Mohinder Singh Gujral. Probate has been granted in Probate Case No. 234 of 2006 vide order dated 15.05.2007 by the Tis Hazari Court, and a Revocation Petition against the same, filed by the Plaintiffs dated 03.10.2013, is pending.

5. Upon which all movable and immovable properties of Late Mrs. Upkar Gujral devolved upon her husband.

6. Late Mr. Mohinder Singh Gujral died on 04.05.2012, and executed 2 separate wills, each dated 09.05.2008. By virtue of the 1st will, he bequeathed the property No. A-6, New Friends Colony, New Delhi to his grandsons, Rohun Gujral and Rahil Gujral, defendants No. 2 and 3. By virtue of the 2nd will, the property bearing No.802, Vishal Bhawan, 95, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 was bequeathed to Mrs. Neelu Chawla, plaintiff No.2. With respect to the 1st will, Probate Petition 69/2012 dated 25.05.2012 was filed in Saket Court, to which Objections dated 03.10.2012 have been filed by the plaintiffs.

7. It is submitted that the Wills executed by Late Mr. Mohinder Singh Gujral were for only immovable assets and the same is admitted and established from the Written Statement of the defendants itself. Hence, a Judgement on admission for movable assets, is sought against the defendants under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908.

8. The present Application has been contested by the defendants by of way of its Reply, wherein all the averments and contentions made in the present Application have been denied.

9. It is asserted that the assertions of the plaintiffs are not based on the pleadings of the answering defendants.

10. The defendants challenge the maintainability of the Application on grounds that it has been filed after more than 5 years of defendants having filed their written statement dated 26.02.2014. Further, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs have not fulfilled the essential requirements of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908 and have failed to show any admission that is clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal.

11. Moreover, the defendants assert that discretionary relief under Order XII, Rule 6 of CPC, 1908 cannot be granted as plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands.

12. It is submitted that the present Application is mala fide and is liable to be dismissed.

13. The plaintiffs in its Rejoinder reiterated its submissions made in the Application. It was further asserted that in Order XII, Rule 6, the legislature has deliberately used the words "at any stage of the suit". Hence, the plaintiffs assert that an application for admission can be filed at any stage of the suit.

14. Furthermore, the plaintiffs assert that defendant No. 1 sold the shares on the basis of nomination, without the consent of other Class 1 legal heirs and without intimating them. The plaintiffs also assert that the defendant NO. 1 has not disclosed the amount realized by him upon sale of shares. Accordingly, plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to the amount of their shares with interest @18% per annum from the date of sale till the amount is paid by him.

15. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgement based on the admission with respect to movable assets, for which there is no will.

16. The plaintiffs in its Written Submissions have reiterated their contentions made in the Application and the Rejoinder.

17. Reliance is placed on the case of Shubhangi Shivji Raoghatge vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1997) 10 SCO 308; Vishin N. Khanchandani vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani Sethi, [2000] 246 ITR 306 (SC), to discuss the law that Class 1 heirs of the deceased are entitled to a share in the amount received by the nominee from the policies.

18. Reliance is also placed on case of Mrs Leelawati Singh & Anr. vs. State & Ors., 75 (1998) DLT 694, which considered the effect of nomination without a Will, and in paragraph 17, cited the case of Hardial Devi Ditta vs. Janki Das & Anr., AIR 1928 Lahore 773 which held that nomination would not amount to a Will or a gift or trust in favour of the nominee and the nominee holds the amount for the benefit of the heirs.

19. It is asserted that in light of observations made in Mrs Leelawati Singh (Supra), the position of law would also apply to the shares held by Late Mohinder Singh Gujral, which has been sold by defendant No. 1 on the basis of nomination.

20. Moreover, plaintiffs assert that the defendants did not allege any nomination with regard to the following assets:- A/c no. 33610007418 in the name of Late Mohinder Singh Gujral in Standard Chartered Bank, 6, Church Lane, Kolkata; A/c no. 54410031375 in the joint name of Late Mohinder Singh Gujral and Late Upkar Gujral in Standard Chartered Bank, 20, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi; and partnership MSG Consultants wherein Late Mohinder Singh Gujral and defendant No. 1 held equal shares of 50%.

21. The plaintiffs also assert that the defendants have admitted in paragraph 32 (e) of the Written Statement that Late Mohinder Singh Gujral held shares to the extent of 48.63% in Upsons Impex Private Limited (‘Company’), and there does not exist any Will with respect to these shares. It is also asserted that the defendants admit that there does not exist any Will with respect to the properties held by the Company as Flat No. 2, Tower-lV, Vipul Belmont, Sector-53, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, valued by the defendants at Rs. 4.30 crores. Similarly, there does not exist any Will for the mutual funds held by the Company in the name and style of Sundaram valued at Rs. 76,53,672/- and had a bank balance of Rs. 16,59,197.37/-. The plaintiffs also assert there does not exist any Will with respect to UPI Realty LLC and UPI Mini Family Trust.

22. Submissions heard.

23. The claim of the plaintiffs for a Judgement on admissions is only with respect to movable properties which they assert is not governed by a will, while the defendants rely on the respective wills executed by Late Upkar Gujral and Late Mohinder Singh Gujral to assert their share in the properties.

24. Before delving into the merits of the case, it would be pertinent to first discuss under what circumstances a decree can be made under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

25. In the case of Himani Alloys Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is an enabling provision, and the court has to exercise its judicial discretion after examination of facts and circumstances, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendants, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore, unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of defendants to contest. It is only when the admission is clear that it may be acted upon.

26. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Vijay Myne v. Satya Bhushan Kaura, (2007) 142 DLT 483 (DB) explained the scope of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and observed that as the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6, CPC is to render speedy judgments and save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. It is to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment based on an admission, when the admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to get the decree. “The admissions can be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing. The admissions can even be constructive admissions and need not be specific or expressive which can be inferred from the vague and evasive denial in the written statement while answering specific pleas raised by the plaintiffs. The admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.” In order to pass a judgement on admissions, the Court has to scrutinize the pleadings in detail and conclude that the admissions are unequivocal, unqualified and unambiguous. Further, the Court is also required to ignore vague, evasive and unspecific denials as well as inconsistent pleas taken in the written statement and replies.

27. The Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Jal Board vs. Surendra P. Malik, (2003) 104 DLT 151 laid down the following tests: - “9. The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit, (ii) whether such admissions are plain, unambiguous and unequivocal, (iii) whether the defense set up is such that it requires evidence for determination of the issues and (iv) whether objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are inconsequential making it impossible for the party to succeed even if entertained. It is immaterial at what stage the judgment is sought or whether admissions of fact are found expressly in the pleadings or not because such admissions could be gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment.”

28. The law on judgment based on admissions was summarized in the case of Dinesh Sharma (Supra), wherein a reference was made to the case of Himani Alloys Ltd. (Supra) and Delhi Jal Board (Supra), to observe: “i) a judgment based on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is not a matter of right, rather is a matter of discretion of the Court;

(ii) to constitute a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admission, the Trial Court has to see the overall effect of the pleadings and documents. For a judgment on admission to be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court has to see as to whether the admission of facts is plain, unambiguous, and unequivocal and go to the root of the matter, which would entitle the other party to succeed;

(iii) if the issue raised, involve the mixed question of fact and law, the same has to be adjudicated by way of evidence;

(iv) the discretion conferred under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.”

29. Thus, it is well established that for a judgment to be based on admissions, the admissions have to be unequivocal and unambiguous, leading to no other conclusion but to a decision in favour of the plaintiffs.

30. The Suit for Partition and Possession and for Rendition of Accounts and for Perpetual and Mandatory Injunction.

31. The facts in brief are that Shri Mohinder Singh Gujral, father and Smt. Upkar Gujral, mother of the parties to the Suit. The mother died on 08.10.2024 and the father died on 04.05.2012. They both died intestate leaving behind the following legal heirs: -

(i) Shri Paminder Gujral, son,

(ii) Smt. Neelu Chawla, daughter,

(iii) Shri Kiranjit Gujral, son,

(iv) Smt. Ranju Sayall, daughter.

32. It is thus submitted that all four siblings are entitled to 1/4th share in the movable and immovable assets of their parents.

33. It is further claimed that the alleged Will dated 21.07.1995 of Smt. Upkar Gujral and the Wills both dated 09.05.2008 of Shri Mohinder Singh Gujral in respect of Property bearing No. A-6, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 and Property bearing No. 802, Vishal Bhawan, 95, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 respectively are forged and fabricated documents. It is thus asserted that the parties to the Suit are all entitled to equal 1/4th share each in the said two suit properties of their parents.

34. The objection has been taken by the defendant No. 1/Kiranjit Gujral and his two sons i.e., the defendant Nos. 2/Rohun Gujral and 3/Rahil Gujral who have asserted about the genuineness of the Wills of their parents. However, it is admitted that the Probate Petition bearing No. 234/2006 seeking Probate in respect of the Will dated 21.07.1995 of Smt. Upkar Gujral, the mother was allowed vide Order dated 15.05.2007. However, the plaintiffs have filed the Petition under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act seeking revocation of the Wills. By virtue of Will dated 21.07.1995, the mother had bequeathed all her movable and immovable properties of her husband, Late Shri Mohinder Singh Gujral.

35. The defendants had also propounded two registered Wills both dated 09.05.2008 of Late Shri Mohinder Singh Gujral. By virtue of these two Wills, he bequeathed his Property bearing No. A-6, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 to defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the grandsons and Property bearing No. 802, Vishal Bhawan, 95, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 to the plaintiff No. 2/Neelu Chawla. The genuineness of the Wills has been questioned by the plaintiffs. However, what is significant to observe is that the defendants have admitted in Paragraphs-31 and 32 of their Written Statement that the Wills were in respect of the immovable properties. Insofar as the movable properties of the father were concerned, it has been claimed that he during his lifetime distributed and divided his movable estate amongst the legal heirs by nominating each of them as a nominee or joint account holder or partner to whom he intended to bequeath the movable asset after his demise to the exclusion of all the other legal heirs. The details of the nomination and distribution have already been indicated in the Application itself.

36. It is asserted that being the nominees, the movable assets have been taken or transferred in name of nominees and once the movable assets already stand distributed, they are not amenable to any further partition.

37. From the averments made in the Written Statement, it emerges that the entire movable and immovable properties of the mother had been bequeathed to the father. The Probate was granted in respect of the Will of Smt. Upkar Gujral is under challenge, then too, after the demise of the mother as well as of the father, all the assets have come in a joint kitty. The question is whether the properties stand devolved in the manner as mentioned in the two Wills by the father. Admittedly, these two Wills pertain to only immovable properties and there is no mention of the movable assets. This implies that the deceased Shri Mohinder Singh Gujral had died intestate inasmuch as the movable assets and properties are concerned. Therefore, it necessarily follows that all the four siblings i.e., the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 1 are equally entitled to 1/4th share in the movable assets.

38. The defence of the defendants is that because during the life time of Shri Mohinder Singh Gujral, he made the legal heirs nominee or joint account holder with himself in all his assets and the movable properties which already stand devolved. This makes it pertinent to refer to the entitlement of the persons who are appointed as the nominees to any movable asset.

39. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) defines ‘nominee’ as a party who holds bare legal title for the benefit of others or who receives and distributes funds for the benefit of others.

40. The Apex Court discussed the status of nominee in insurance in the case of Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, (1984) 1 SCC 424. While considering the interest in the amount received by the nominee when the insured dies intestate under the Insurance Act, 1938, it was held that a nominee cannot be treated equivalent to an heir or legatee as ‘nomination’ does not operate as succession or ‘statutory testament’ and is subject to claim of heirs of the insured under law of succession.

41. In Nozer Gustad Commissariat v. Central Bank of India, 1992 SCC OnLine Bom 481 the Bombay High Court while considering the Claims under the EPF & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, relied on principle laid down in Sarbati Devi (supra) to hold that a ‘Nominee’ does not have an absolute title to provident fund amount of the deceased.

42. Similarly, in Vishin N. Khanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani, (2000) 6 SCC 724 the Apex court held that a ‘nominee’ of the National Savings Certificates has a right to be paid the sum after the death of the holder; however he retains the amount for the benefits of persons entitled to it under law of succession.

43. In Ram Chander Talwar v. Devender Kumar Talwar, (2010) 10 SCC 671 the Apex court held that ‘nominee’ of a deceased under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 merely gives the nominee an exclusive right to receive the money lying in the bank account of deceased but does not make the nominee an owner of the money.

44. In the recent case of Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, (2024) 4 SCC 642 wherein the testator had executed a Will making provision for devolution of his estate by nominating successors, the nominee-respondent filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction, for restraining the appellants and other respondents from taking any action in respect of the properties, the Apex court after canvassing the law on nomination vis-a-vis various statutes like Insurance Act, 1938, EPF & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Companies Act, 1956 held that a nomination would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the subject property to the exclusion of legal heirs as law of succession shall not be impacted by such nomination.

45. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that a person, who is a nominee, is a trustee for the purpose of getting the money or the shares as the case may be, from the person holding them. The nominee is only a trustee of the assets so realised on behalf of the deceased who merely holds the assets but is not a person who is entitled to it exclusively, but is to be distributed to all the legatees in accordance with the Rules of succession.

46. The respondents, in the present case have admitted that the Wills on which the reliance has been placed by them do not pertain to the movable property and are confined only to the immoveable properties, implying thereby that the testator had died intestate in respect of all the moveable assets which shall devolve according to rules of succession. It is claimed that all the moveable assets already stand distributed and have been given to the respective nominees/joint owners. However, as discussed above, the law does not make the respective nominees entitled to exclusive inheritance of such assets. The assets may have been realised/ received by the nominees, but they have to be distributed amongst all the legal heirs in accordance with their respective entitlements/shares.

47. Having found that there is no Will in respect of the movable assets and devolved on all the four legal heirs of the Shri Mohinder Singh Gujral, it is hereby held that all the three plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 are entitled to 1/4th share in the assets in all the movable assets of the deceased which he was holding at the time of his demise.

48. The details of the movable properties have been mentioned by the defendants in their Written Statement but what is the current status of those assets and also the details of the money/shares so realised by each of the nominees/joint account holders are required to be furnished by each of the nominees/joint owners.

49. It is hereby directed that all the parties on affidavit shall disclose the details of movable assets that have been realised by them or they are still holding having received them from the deceased Shri Mohinder Singh Gujral by virtue of being the nominees in respect of one account in State Bank of India at New Friends Colony.

50. The defendants had also asserted that in respect of the bank accounts/lockers as mentioned at serial No. A to D, the plaintiffs who are said to be the joint holder. While the bank account lockers mentioned at Serial No. 3 had stated to be a joint account with plaintiff No. 2.

51. The plaintiffs are hereby directed to furnish the details of these movable assets, the amounts that are still available in these accounts and also what amounts have been realised by each of the parties.

52. The Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is allowed and Preliminary Decree is accordingly passed holding all the three plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 are entitled to 1/4th share each in all the movable assets of Late Shri Mohinder Singh Gujral.

53. The parties are liable for rendering the details of the account of the assets that have been independently realised or continue to be in their name.

54. The details be furnished by filing of affidavits within eight weeks for passing the Find Decree in respect of the movable assets. I.A. 16625/2023 (under Section 151 CPC seeking early/urgent listing of application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908, i.e. I.A. NO. 17361/2018)

55. The Application under Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiffs seeking early/urgent listing of Application bearing I.A. No. 17361/2018 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, accordingly stands disposed of.

56. List for consideration of affidavits and passing of Final Decree on 21.08.2024.

57. The Suit in respect of the immovable properties shall continue.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE June 28, 2024/