SIBAL ROARS IN SC.. OVER MULTI-CRORE FAMILY LAND DISPUTE |

[00:00:00]So the father is saying she should entitled to 116th. Entire family is against her. She gets the mother mullers influences her and does all this and the judge says you must plead fraud. How do you plead fraud in those situations?

[00:00:14]I mean it's so patent. Why would any mother mut exclude the entire family unless she's persuaded? I mean ex facial there is undue influence. 512 2009 Dindra Singh Chari had established various family companies partnerships and trusts wherein capital shareholding was held either only by the late Dindra Singh Chari and Mrs. Sitha Chri are along with minuscule shareholding by third parties.

[00:00:44]These were primarily asset holding entities.

[00:00:48]The Vindra Singh Chri expired in 2009.

[00:00:52]According to his wife Sitha Chri, the deceased left behind a will dated 263 2004 in terms of which devolution of his shares capital took place.

[00:01:04]Sana Singh also admits and relies upon this very will dated 263 2004.

[00:01:11]According to one son the Singh the deceased left behind a will dated 410 2018.

[00:01:17]8 probate case PC so and so has been filed in sake court. According to another son Vindra Singh the deceased died in test state between 2009 to 21. After demise of Chri, one granddaughter Sena Singh and her family shifted in and started residing with Sitha Chri in Chandigar.

[00:01:37]During later years 2018 onwards by exercising undue influence upon Sitha Chari, D4 and her husband D9 executed three plans. Transfer of capital shares in entities, sale of properties at minimal amounts and usurpation of proceeds and interest free loans and advances. Now those transactions are set out here at in the table 2018 month this is after she went to Chandigar immediately after that corporate entity is so and so transfer is Sitha Chari transfer is Surena Singh 6,000 shares transferred to similarly PE Manning consultant limited again 18,000 shares transferred then Ruchi Towers 62% LLP capital transferred 14 143 2019 19 drama packing packing meal 47 LLP capital transferred then Malad's 249 2019 Ruchi Towers 38% and 66 2019 Mal industrial cables which is really the the the so-called Mullet's um flagship company now further while in control of ICL that is D13 ICL is Mullet's industrial cable India limited that's ICL D4 got an unoffful rights issue undertaken by which D4 further issued 10 10 lakhs 43,000 shares to herself and became an 81% shareholder by these transfers almost entire entirety of the family entities 96% were usurped by her by exercising undue influence upon Sitha Chri to the exclusion of all other family members additionally ally during this period they alienated properties through Sithach Chadri and usurp the sale proceeds for example the farmhouse located at green at village Rajokari the new Delhi was sold by D4 and D9 at 4 k so and so further through interest advances and loans taken through family companies they amassed an amount of 50 kores which have not been returned details are set out in 20 par 20 of the point by Using these funds, loans and proceeds, D4 and D9 interelia purchased a flat in DF Magnodia flats in Magnum Towers Gorg factory in Luxshire, UK and sports luxury cars which is set out in 22 PAR 22. While Sitha Chri continued under undue influence of D4 and D9 Vindra Singh filed suit in high court challenging the transfers which is suit number so and so. Since Sithach Chi was under control of D4 and D9 they controlled instructions to lawyers and pleadings were filed opposing the suit.

[00:04:30]Then in June 2021 fearing threat to life Sith Chri finally moved out of Chandigar residence and moved in with another granddaughter that is sister of D4 Shri Manav. That is when she realized that actions of D4 and D5 gotten her to execute.

[00:04:49]Then on 211021 present suit by Sith Chri was filed essentially seeking declaration that transfers in favor of D4 null and void and for injunction and on 121121 exarty status go against D4 and D9 granted while reserving judgment in the main injunction application upon a separate application filed by the plaintiff the learned single judge granted an adentarium state with regard to 100 acres of property owned by maj industrial cable limited which is maji flagship ship company.

[00:05:21]The granted addin stay with regard to 100 acres of property owned by ICL in Rajpura which was sold to JMD super infratech surreptitiously on 29722 detailed judgment passed by the learned single status court order confirmed while allowing the original 391 and2 applications and dismissed to 394 on 16822 appeals filed against the judgment dated 297 of the single judge the FAO Mullets came up for hearing no state of operation of the judgment and then the plaintiff discovered certain other sales executed by D4 and D9 in favor of their own companies application filed interim status were granted order dated 19123 challenged an appeal all appeals allowed effectively status quo of 4 and a half years of vacated and your lordships continue the status quo that's briefly mut allegations now kindly see I want >> what are the what are the grounds on which you want us to reverse the judgment >> no this is in our the single judge is in our favor.

[00:06:22]>> Correct.

[00:06:22]>> So I want to show you what the single judge said. I'll have to do that.

[00:06:26]>> Correct.

[00:06:26]>> Now mother scandi have first of all kindly look at that will >> no what we wanted to ask you is what actually the ideal thing this resolution of this mus that the suit itself should be disposed of within 6 months.

[00:06:43]>> Easier said than done. No, I agree.

[00:06:46]>> But either way, but what happens is if the state doesn't agree order, we have no difficulty. If if the state doesn't agree with that if the if the state doesn't continue contentious case >> no I'm not disputing that I'm just your >> saying that you will ask the same to be disposed of in the meanwhile what is to hold the field whether the division benches order >> well if division bench orders everything will be sold >> that's the point that will be so therefore the balance of >> the balance of convenience is that nothing should happen to that to those properties can convince your friends I I can only convince you.

[00:07:23]>> I can only convince you on lordship.

[00:07:24]>> No, you tell us complete your argument.

[00:07:26]I don't think we Yes.

[00:07:28]>> I'm sorry.

[00:07:29]>> No, no. I'm saying that I don't think we are already jumping [laughter] where we are going to agree with your suggestion. They're already there.

[00:07:38]>> Complete it because this should not continue for long. We will take a call on this. Don't worry.

[00:07:43]>> That's right. That's right. Now, let us kindly see the will first. That's important. that you're not simp one.

[00:07:52]Do we have a common compilation or?

[00:07:55]>> No. No. This is the first point on which the learned singles are decided in our favor on the page.

[00:08:03]>> Page page page.

[00:08:03]>> Page 107.

[00:08:05]>> 107.

[00:08:06]>> 107 volume one. Just just so that if your lordship looks at the chart, her own father is against her. Defender number to her own father in the suit is against him. So the entire family >> I'm sorry.

[00:08:21]>> Yeah. the entire family on one side and Sunana Singh on the other side which he has 8% share before all this happened.

[00:08:27]>> Yes. Now with us, kindly see paragraph 2 at page 108.

[00:08:38]This is the bill.

[00:08:40]>> During the period of the natural life of my wife Sitha Chari, the executive Sitha Chri shall hold the entire residue of my estate to receive the annual or other income thereof and there. And in fir in the first place the executive shall reimburse or pay or discharge all the costs and expenses incurred for the administration of the estate including taxes and duties of all types and subject there too the executive shall pay spend or apply the net income to or for the sole benefit of Sid Chadi. This is important. The income is for the benefit of Sid Chi in any manner whatsoever they decided by Sid Chi right mother. Then immediately next three immediately after the day of death of my wife Sith Chari the executive shall divide the entire of my estate into three equal parts.

[00:09:45]>> That is my estate.

[00:09:48]She says my estate that is Dinda Char's estate in three equal parts.

[00:09:54]So the judge looked at this will and this is the the finding he render volume two and see two one one one such equal part shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in part four of this willpinder >> that isinder Singh. Then the second such equal part to be held in trust in accordance with the provisions of part five that is binder Singh and the third such equal part shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of part six that is bupin. [snorts] So mothers the will was clear in this >> only life. It's only a life interest out of the income she has to >> and the bench says it is not life interest the division bench says that >> single judge says it's life interest >> they are deciding the case >> I just want to so that your lordship knows now kindly see the finding of the learned judge 681 same >> sorry Yes sir. Yes.

[00:10:55]>> And then let's kindly see even at 108.

[00:10:57]I'm sorry my learning friend rightly points out kindly see oneird of the residue of my estate mentioned in part three a of this will shall be transferred to the following four persons or their respective legal heirs by excluding the wife ofinder Singh equally per stripe.

[00:11:16]>> Sunana is there. Number two.

[00:11:18]>> Number two is >> 1/4 of the entire >> she gets 1/4 of the 1/3 which is the 8% I was talking about which I showed in the chart.

[00:11:27]Her right is from her father murder. How can she take all this?

[00:11:34]And this is in teeth of section 142 of the Hindu succession act where your lordship and refer the matter to a larger bench because there are some judgments bullets which are no refer of course doesn't affect but I'm just mentioning now let's kindly see the finding of the learned judge on this 680 mothers at 681 volume two >> volume two.

[00:11:56]>> Yes.

[00:11:58]Second.

[00:11:59]>> Yeah.

[00:12:05]>> Yeah. Par 13 681.

[00:12:13]>> He's extracted the will. Mullets.

[00:12:16]Then a learning judge says a user of the above set closes of the will would demonstrate.

[00:12:20]>> Where does the finger start? 24 >> 681.

[00:12:23]>> 1 minute.

[00:12:24]>> I'm sorry. Just seeing where >> starts at 658 >> 658 >> 658 MS volume 2 658 at 681 he sets out the will at bottom of 683 684 and then >> yeah user of the above set clauses of the will demonstrate that the plaintiff being the wife of the testtor was appointed as the executive of the will in the first place. Clause C2 provides that during the natural life of Sitha Chri, Sitha Chri, executive is to spend apply the net income for the sole benefit of Sitha Chri. The approach clause does not create any absolute right in favor of Sitha Chi in the estate and only provide that during her lifetime should be entitled to the net income derived from the estate. At best, there was a limited estate granted in favor of the plaintiff under the efforts at win. It is only after the death of the plaintiff that the estate of the deceased testister was to be divided into three equal parts as provided in clause 33 of the will.

[00:13:27]>> Then further senior council appearing on behalf of defendants 4 and 9 has tenuously urged that the freed entire residue of the estate occurring in three refers to the estate left behind after the death of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff was absolute owner of the estate in her lifetime and was well within her rights to transfer the estate. I do not agree with this submission for the reason that the same phrase entire residue of my estate has also been used in clause 32 of the bill which suggest that the reference to the phrase an entire residue of my state refers to the estate left behind >> after taking to where we come to the simple suit for suit for a defation >> take aim order for temporary injunction why should this interfered >> 75 pages order not only the single judge I'm just saying that you know only simplest principle is pending disposal of the suit protect the interests of both parties >> that's all that's all >> so that but then all of you argue for year for days on >> we don't have to mother I agree entirely >> get count down and uh they keep writing the events like this >> no absolutely right I have no problems with that >> I'm saying it's it's a it's >> interest of both parties have to be protected. That's all. But since there is an elaborate judgment and the division bench doesn't kindly see what the division bench says on this >> such partition suits 10 suits would have been decided with this kind of an effort.

[00:14:56]>> That's why it takes so long but suits to be disposed of.

[00:15:00]>> Yeah. Read further wherever you want to read.

[00:15:03]>> Yes. Normal the point was Sith Chi was wearing two hats. One is the executive and the other mad they had an interest in the income.

[00:15:13]That's all and that's why the confusion but be that is may the single judge interpreted it. Why should the division have interfered with this?

[00:15:23]Ant says exactly that. Your lordship knows that.

[00:15:27]>> Yes. Tell us further.

[00:15:29]>> Well, as division bench says not it says no purposity. I'll show that to your lordship.

[00:15:33]>> Anything more in the single changes order?

[00:15:35]>> Yes. There is so much more >> for you to complete. We are asking anything further now that we are at the page 682.

[00:15:42]>> In view of the above the plaintiffs have made out of primari case and then the operative partner that page par 89.

[00:15:50]No third party interest including sale, transfer and incumbrance shall be created in respect of the properties owned by defendants 13 to 17.

[00:16:00]Events four to nine are restrained from transferring, selling, alienating, creating third party interest of the properties being property office building so and so property she purchased with one minute. These are the property she purchased with the funds mother and then the officer directions had not come in the way of the defendant selling transferring pros developed.

[00:16:33]>> Yeah.

[00:16:35]Page page 39 39 >> that's when this findings >> that's the will issue mother which I showed to your logo was the single judge's health >> par 51 50 lane reading of the aphoset clause two of the paragraph 3 >> 51 >> 50 onwards >> yes >> lane reading of the aphoset clause two of paragraph 3 makes It evident that the deceased expressly authorized the plaintiff to administer and deal with his estate during her lifetime without any embargo while claws in division of the residual estate only upon her demise her demise. The testimentary disposition further provides that onethird of the residual estate shall vest after the plaintiff's death in the family of defendant two including defendant four.

[00:17:26]The will dated so and so was acted upon immediately. The plaintiff continued to manage and deal with the properties as absolute administrator and executed multiple sale deeds during her lifetime.

[00:17:36]Significantly, none of the legal heirs of the deceased raised any objection to such transactions at the relevant time.

[00:17:42]Even in CS so and so 589, the plaintiff did not assert that she held merely a life estate. The contrary assumption drawn by the judge while granting injunction does not prom scheme. In any event, they will clearly stipulate that the residual estate would draw upon respondent to and family including defendants for after the plaintiff's death. The single judge also failed.

[00:18:04]That's all.

[00:18:11]>> This is after laying down the correct wonder and tax principle at page 28 section 11 par 33. Par 33 millet settle position of law emerging from the above relied authorities that the appel scrutiny of inennium injunction order is inherently limited.

[00:18:28]>> Such orders are discretionary in nature since the trial court exercises judicial discretion while assessing a primacia case. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury based on the facts before it. Its assessment carries primary weight as this determined is as this determination is not governed by rigid legal rules but by judicial discretion. And the appellet the appellet court does not undertake a fresh reconsideration of the [laughter] matter. Consequently, the appellet court cannot substitute its own view merely because it may have arrived at a different conclusion. Contrary to what he's held, >> he doesn't apply this law. They don't apply this law on the same material.

[00:19:04]Interference is justified only in exceptional situations specifically with the tri court exercise of discretion is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or malified. He doesn't hold any of that based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations or contrary to settle legal principles. In essence, the test is not whether the appellet court an alternative view but whether the trial trial court's decision falls outside the realm of law and although the appellet court may examine the record determine whether the discretion has been improperly exercised. Let's skip all that and this is all lecture page 40 he >> there's no finding of perversity is what we are saying no finding of perversity even in this paragraph he says he has to find perversity but there's no finding of perversity I assume to your lord's interpretation of the will in par 50 and 51 and yet he doesn't apply the same principle Then what does the division say?

[00:20:05]>> We will just come to the crucial portions how he reverses it.

[00:20:08]>> He reverses it on the ground that there can be no question of undue influence.

[00:20:11]>> No undue influence. He says >> yes no question of undue influence your lordship knows the single judge applied the test of section 111 of the evidence act.

[00:20:25]Section 111 of the evidence act says this much natural love and affection.

[00:20:34]No, no. It says mother >> it says where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties section 107 11 of the evidence act.

[00:20:53]It says yes. It says when the when a question when the question is whether any person is sorry where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties one of the one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence.

[00:21:15]The burden on proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.

[00:21:25]Right? And this is led and this is led in conjunction with undue influence under the contract act. And he discusses all that. None of this is discussed.

[00:21:35]>> And the single judge cites judgments on that. The argument made by the other side was even when she filed the suit mothers when another suit was filed when Vinda filed the suits she they moved a 711 that the suit should be dismissed and she was party to that the single judge finds that that suit was moved. Why?

[00:21:58]Because she was the advocates were being paid by Sunena >> and the invoices are there on record.

[00:22:08]So that's the finding of the learned singer judge that in fact all the being managed by sona that's at page 700 just so that your lordships are aware as to what the finding is then what is the unduance and how does he deal with it mullet time is still undue from it >> that's right pair of 59 >> say Sorry.

[00:22:37]>> 59. Correct.

[00:22:38]>> Yes. Par 59 is all that he says about then see page 48.

[00:22:46]>> Yes. This is very important. It's very interesting which is also factually incorrect. Par 74. However, I'm sorry.

[00:22:56]>> Go ahead. Go ahead. However, as noticed here in above, defendant number two has propounded a subsequent will dated 410 2008 and has already instituted probate letters of administration proceedings in respect thereof before the learned single district judge sake court. If the will of 2008 is ultimately held to be the last valid testament of the deceased, all conclusions promised solely on the will of 2004 would cease to have an illegal foundation. In such circumstances, it would be impermissible at the interlocatory stage to proceed on the assumption that the plaintiff enjoys any settled or superior right so as to warrant injunctive protection. This is >> particularly true in view of the fact that the matter is referred to >> recorded. It has been recorded that defendant 4 to9 have been conferred more than 1/4 in the estate. Where are they get where the learned judge is getting that father? And this will is propounded by Sunana Singh's father the 2008 will subsequent will and the father is against it as defendant two as opposing Sana Singh.

[00:24:00]>> Okay.

[00:24:01]>> And where does he get where does he get 4 to9 get 1/4 >> and in this wheel of 2008 she gets 116th >> not even 112th.

[00:24:12]So the father is saying she should entitled to 116th. Entire family is against her. She gets the mother mullers influences her and does all this and the judge says you must plead fraud. How do you plead fraud in those situations?

[00:24:26]I mean it's so patent. Why would any mothers exclude the entire family unless she's persuaded? I mean ex facial there is undue influence.

[00:24:39]Anomalous kindly see now there is one property that I was wanting to deal with that the industrial cables but that's a 100 acre project I just want to show something at your lot >> why are we dealing with individual profits >> sorry >> why are we dealing with individual property >> details of the individual property >> in the replication >> in the replication I'll just give that to you give me a Section 14 are landowning companies and there's no no activity is happening except the sale of land by Sona Singh. The only other company where actually houses and things are being built is Maduban which the judges excluded with the single judges excluded. You can do what you like with Madhuban. But for companies which only hold land, you can't be selling off the land and no purchase since since 1990 since 1970. No purchase. These are legacy lands that were there with them.

[00:25:54]She got the lands transfer. They got the shares started selling the land and making money.

[00:26:00]enter into normal the 100 acres of land is very important >> that's all not necessary those individual cases not necessary for the purpose of >> injunction part of what is it that >> but they show the fraudulent conduct only for that if you're don't I would >> not necessary >> we understood what it is one minute we coming back please >> is it necessary >> I want to just show if you're don't mind kindly see m Oh, you Yes. Handle. Handle. Yes. Yes.

[00:26:32]Handle just this one thing and then bullets.

[00:26:36]>> Then we'll ask you something.

[00:26:47]>> Put it here from here. Then we'll show the first page for this is the second page. The first page. Kindly see the first page. It's a not >> yes I've already mentioned that. Now kindly see the first page man of this that JMD is a sham company that par six item six >> one lakh rupee paid up capital. Well, let's kindly see this is a 1 lakh rupee paid up capital only of that company and the balance sheet for the year 21 131 31321 shows that the company had a revenue of 6.4 lakhs and zero employees.

[00:27:32]It has assets worth 29,122.

[00:27:37]Now PC Sharma promoter of JMB is an associate of Senna Singh and signed as witness in earlier unconnected sale deeds for Senna Singh for Sena Singh Magnum Towers dated so and so the consideration amount in XFacia unconscionable in due of development of a plotted colony and against payment of 1 K GMD has been given land rights of 50% of the 95 acre property with one lakh company.

[00:28:08]>> We'll not get into all this. Give it a we understand what we >> completely learn just to say a couple of things.

[00:28:16]>> Just two supplemental points. Disputes between these families are not just in this suit.

[00:28:23]Mr. Sibel had mentioned to your lordships that there was a subsequent will propounded by the father of Sunana Singh in the year 2008. He has filed a probate case asking my lord for probate in respect of that subsequent will. Both the courts notice it. This is one case separate case there is a partition suit filed by the third uncle the other person who is the brother of Sunana Singh's father saying that this property heard he says that this is entire joint family property there has to be a partition affected in respect of all these properties. Now those two m those two proceedings are also pending and m the single judge notes that if the father's probate case is going to be answered this will in fact would have no legs to stand upon only for one more additional factor me second injunction granted me the date given to your lordships was 121 2021 notwithstanding the injunction me they were dealing with this rajura property me which Mr. was pointing out to your lordships. They had to go back and file a 392A application against Sunayana Singh that notwithstanding the injunction they're continuing with this property.

[00:29:27]>> Now that we dealing with >> so second injunction granted me by the learned single judge. Then there are dealing meal with another property luxury. Third injunction granted me by the court. If I may just give the page numbers >> you understand you're trying what you're saying that court's order didn't control them. They ended up >> so >> selling and fittering away the property.

[00:29:48]Nothing will remain by the time the final judgment is passed.

[00:29:51]>> Last submission I need to make from the if lordship would kindly take the learned single judges order from page 707 not necessary continuous acts. I'll not trouble reading it. Continuous acts where the court finds that these people have taken loans in the name of the companies pursuant to the will using the loan money for acquiring assets in their own name. Number one. Number two, they enter into me lot some kind of phantom agreements with their own controlled companies giving me lot disproportionately high share for development to their own companies. So they're trying to take away the property and making this property remote in case Lord the suit were to be decreed and they were to lose their case. So clear case made out by the learned single judge to be satisfied that injunction needs to be granted and lordships have already seen that man Comments booksto