Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 9th September, 2022
MUNISH KALRA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Aastha Dhawan, Ms. Shaini Bhardwaj, Mr. Prateek Solanki, Mr. Aditya Sharma and Ms. Pratishtha Shandilya, Advocates. (9818372768) with Plaintiff in person.
Through: Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate for D-1.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A.9560/2022 & 11571/2022 in CS (OS) 2940/2014
2. This is a classic case which shows that sibling rivalry over monetary and property disputes left behind by parents, are not put to rest, even when the parents are to be put to rest.
3. The background of this unfortunate dispute between the Plaintiff - Sh. Munish Kalra and the Defendant No.1- Smt. Kiran Madan, who are siblings is that their father Late Sh. L.N. Kalra, was the owner of the property bearing No.K-58,Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. He was a Banker by profession and left behind substantial movable and immovable assets. He was married to Smt. Krishna Kalra, and they had three children - Sh. Lokesh Kalra, Sh. Munish Kalra and Smt. Kiran Madan (maiden name - Kiran Kalra). Sh. 2022:DHC:3548 Lokesh Kalra, the other brother, has been ex-parte during the proceedings before this Court.
4. Late Sh. L.N. Kalra had passed away on 29th July, 2014. Thereafter, disputes had arisen between the parties.
5. This Court had considered the matter from time to time during the years 2018 and 2019. Since the parties, at that stage, had expressed willingness to amicably resolve the disputes, with the assistance of their ld. Counsels, the parties had settled the matter, and the matter was disposed of, vide order dated 15th March, 2019 passed by this Court. The said settlement was also recorded in paragraph 4 of the order dated 15th March, 2019. On the said date, i.e., 15th March, 2019, the parties appeared before this Court and their statements were also recorded, including that of the mother, Smt. Krishna Kalra. The settlement as recorded in the order dated 15th March, 2019 is extracted below:
6. Parties have given effect to the settlement and there is no dispute that the payments have been made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1 of the sum of Rs.[3] crores as agreed. Thereafter, however, disputes again arose between the parties again in respect of alleged illegal withdrawals by the Defendant No.1-sister, Smt. Kiran Madan from the bank account of the mother, Smt. Krishna Kalra. In view of the said disputes, I.A.9560/2022 was filed by the Plaintiff seeking directions against the Defendant No.1.
7. The alleged illegal withdrawals are disputed by the Defendant No.1sister. Mr. Yadav, ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1 submits that his client has not made any illegal withdrawals, and only a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month, for which she was entitled to, was being withdrawn by her, as she was maintaining the mother.
8. Notice was issued in the application being I.A.9560/2022 on 11th July, 2022, on which date, it was recorded as follows:
9. Thereafter, another application being I.A.11571/2022 was also filed by the Plaintiff seeking directions to the Defendant No.1 to appoint a full-time nurse or medical attendant to take care of the mother.
10. Today, it is submitted that the mother who was living with the Defendant No.1-sister in Mumbai, has now unfortunately has passed away on 27th July, 2022. The cremation of the mother is stated to have been conducted in the absence of both the sons.
11. It is the grievance of the Plaintiff that he was merely informed of the demise of his mother, but the cremation was conducted on 27th July, 2022 itself, without waiting for the Plaintiff, despite repeated emails addressed to his sister. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.1 has insisted that she would permit the ashes to be given to the Plaintiff only if the application filed regarding alleged illegal withdrawals is withdrawn by him.
12. The Plaintiff, who is a resident of the USA, is present in Court today. He submits that he wishes to carry out the last rites of his mother, however, the ashes of the mother are not being made available to him by his sister.
13. On the other hand, it is the case of Mr. Yadav, ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1-sister vehemently contended that the mother did not wish for her son to carry out the last rites.
14. Considering that, vide order dated 15th March, 2019, a full and final settlement between the parties was recorded by the Court, this Court is of the opinion that the sentiment which is sought to be contended by ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1 to the effect that the mother did not wish for the son to carry out the last rites, was not part of the said settlement.
15. In any event, this Court is of the opinion that the settlement was entered into in the presence of the mother, Smt. Krishna Kalra, who had appeared before this Court on the said date. In view of the fact that her unfortunate demise has taken place, this Court is of the opinion that in the spirit of the full and final settlement recorded on 15th March, 2019, and considering the nature of the dispute, the matter deserves to be brought to a quietus.
16. Mr. Munish Kalra submits that in order to bring peace, he does not wish to press the application being I.A.9560/2022 in view of the demise of his mother. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1 submits that if the said application is not pressed, his client is willing for the last rites to be conducted along with the Plaintiff.
17. Accordingly, the ashes of the mother of the Plaintiff would be made available to him by the Defendant No.1, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 shall carry out the last rites of their mother together. Ld. Counsels for the parties to coordinate amongst themselves for carrying out the last rites of their mother, Smt. Krishna Kalra.
18. All the remaining terms of settlement, as recorded in the order dated 15th March, 2019, shall be strictly adhered to by both the parties.
19. Copy of the death certificate of Smt. Krishna Kalra shall also be provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendant No.1, within two days.
20. I.A.9560/2022 is disposed of, in the above terms. I.A.11571/2022 is disposed of as infructuous.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SEPTEMBER 9, 2022/dk/ad