Delhi District Court
Ragini Gill ) vs State ) on 16 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI, ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI
GP No. 08/2019
CNR No. DLSW010029452019
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Ragini Gill )
W/o Late Naveen Gill )
R/o 88, Kalyani Apartment )
Plot No. 31, Sector4, Dwarka )
Delhi - 110078 ) ... Petitioner No.1
2. Shivodit Gill (minor) )
S/o Late Naveen Gill )
R/o 88, Kalyani Apartment )
Plot No. 31, Sector4, Dwarka )
Delhi - 110078 ) ... Petitioner No.2
3. Yuvika Gill (minor) )
D/o Late Naveen Gill )
R/o 88, Kalyani Apartment )
Plot No.31, Sector4, Dwarka )
Delhi - 110078 ) ... Petitioner No.3
v.
1. State ) ...Respondent No.1
2. Prof. Rama Kant )
R/o A4/202, Kingsbury, TDI Tower )
Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana ) ... Respondent No.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vipul Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GP No. 08/2019 Page No.1/10
Date of filing of petition: 02.03.2019
Date of judgment reserved: 13.01.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 18.01.2021
Date of amendment of judgment: 16.02.2021
JUDGMENT
1. A widow, Ragini Gill (hereinafter "Ragini"/"petitioner No.1") has preferred a petition under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter "the Wards Act") read with Section 8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter "the HMG Act") seeking permission of the Court to sell properties devolved upon her minor children on account of the demise of her husband, Naveen Gill (hereinafter "Naveen").
2. Naveen was born to Sadhu Ram and Bachno Devi. Sadhu Ram and Bachno Devi in total had four children, two sons, namely, Naveen Gill and Praveen Gill and two daughters, namely, Chandra Prabha Murthy Praveen Gill and Balvinder Kumar.
3. Sadhu Ram and Bachno Devi were allotted an immovable property i.e. property bearing No. 28, Pocket 8, Block No. B, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi - 110035 (hereinafter "Rohini Property"). Bachno Devi predeceased her husband on 17.02.2008 and whereas Sadhu Ram died on 24.09.2011. Post the demise of Bachno Devi and Sadhu Ram, Naveen and his sister, Chandra Prabha Murthy preferred a suit of partition against their siblings with regard to Rohini property titled as Naveen Gill & Anr. v. Praveen Gill & Anr. - CS DJ ADJ 78007/20161 at North West district, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Naveen on account of prolonged illness died on 24.05.2015 during the pendency of the said suit, and consequentially his class I legal heirs were substituted as legal representatives.
4. The aforesaid suit preferred at North West district, Rohini Courts, Delhi was ultimately settled amongst the parties on the basis of a memorandum of understanding dated 04.09.2018 (hereinafter "MoU"), wherein Ragini and two 1 Date of institution - 27.05.2013; Date of final order - 04.09.2018.
GP No. 08/2019 Page No.2/10of her children acquired 1/12th share each in the Rohini property. As per the terms and conditions of the MoU, it was agreed amongst the parties to the MoU that the Rohini property would be divided in four equal parts, i.e., 1/4 th each, in case the same is not divisible, the same would be sold to a third party and the sale proceeds would be shared in four equal parts amongst them.
5. On the other hand, Ragini and Naveen from their wedlock bore two children, Shivodit Gill born in the year 2003 and Yuvika Gill born on 04.09.2008. Shivodit Gill and Yuvika Gill for the sake of clarity, brevity and facility are hereinafter jointly and collectively referred to as "subject minors".
6. During his lifetime, Naveen and Ragini had jointly purchased a flat admeasuring 1350yds2 bearing Flat No. 03, First Floor, Plot No. 779, Rani Sati Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter "Jaipur property") by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 01.09.2006.
7. On account of the demise of Naveen on 24.05.2015, the Jaipur property also devolved upon Ragini and her minor children and consequentially, Ragini acquired 1/6th share and became 2/3rd owner in right, title of the Jaipur property and her children acquired 1/6th share each in the said property.
8. Ragini has averred in the petition that the Rohini property is not divisible amongst the legal heirs of Sadhu Ram and Bachno Devi and the same is to be sold to the third party and the sale proceeds would be shared on proportionate basis amongst the parties. With regard to the Jaipur property, Ragini has urged that not only she being a widow is unable to manage the property as the same is situated in a different State i.e., State of Rajasthan, but also their savings and finances have been drained to the prolonged illness and treatment of Naveen for over seven years until his death in 2015. Ragini has averred that she was gainfully employed as coordinator with Hotel Radisson Blu, Dwarka but the expenses of her minor children such as school fees, tuition fees, stationery, sports, clothing, miscellaneous expenses, etc., are backbreaking and has made hard for her to make both ends meet. Ragini has also averred that Shivodit is in Class 10th and her daughter Yuvika is in Class 5 th and their monthly school fees are ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) approximately.
GP No. 08/2019 Page No.3/10Hence, the present petition seeking leave, permission of the court to sell the undivided shares of the minors in the Rohini property and the Jaipur property for their best interest and advantage.
9. Notice of the petition was issued to the State, Govt. of NCT, Delhi through Chief Secretary, concerned Collector to file valuation reports of the Rohini property and the Jaipur property - vide order dated 05.03.2019. In response to the same, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar, District North West, Delhi filed a valuation report qua the Rohini property, wherein the same has been valued at ₹47,11,680/- (Rupees Forty seven lakhs eleven thousand six hundred eighty only).2
10. The valuation report of the Jaipur property was received after some delay on account of suspension of work due to the outbreak of pandemic Coronavirus (COVID-19), as per which the Jaipur property has been valued at ₹27,23,120/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs twenty three thousand one hundred and twenty only).3 It is observed from the case record that the valuation report of the Jaipur property by the concerned SDM was dispatched via courier to Ragini on 06.01.20214 and the same filed by her in court immediately on receipt. Ragini did not lodge any challenge and protest to the valuation reports of the Rohini property and the Jaipur property.
11. The citation was published in The Statesman, an English daily on 30.07.2019, and Rashtriya Sahara, a Hindi daily on 11.08.2019, respectively. A notice of the petition was also pasted on the notice board of this court. Pursuant to the issuance of notice of the petition to the close relatives of the subject minors, on 21.05.2019 and 19.11.2019 the maternal uncles, Rama Kant 5 (respondent No. 2 herein), Abhineshwar Dayal Saxena 6 and Neel Kant7 and 2 See order dated 27.08.2019 and 19.11.2019.
3See order dated 13.01.2021.
4See courier receipt of DTDC dated 06.01.2021 bearing Consignment No. W00463879 5 See order dated 21.05.2019 6 See order dated 19.11.2019 7 ibid.
GP No. 08/2019 Page No.4/10maternal aunt, Ruby Bhatnagar8 appeared before the court and recorded their no-objection statements in favour of Ragini.
12. Ragini Gill stepped in the witness box, as PW1 on 27.02.2020 and tendered evidence by way of an affidavit9 along with following documents:
S.No. Particulars of Documents Documents Marked
as
(i) Aadhaar card of petitioner No. 1. Ex. PW1/A (OSR)
(ii) Aadhaar card of petitioner No. 2 (minor). Ex. PW1/B (OSR)
(iii) Aadhaar card of petitioner No. 3 (minor). Ex. PW1/C (OSR)
(iv) Photocopy of death certificate of Naveen Gill. Ex. PW1/D (OSR)
(v) Certified copy of memorandum of understanding Ex. PW1/E
dated 04.09.2018.
(vi) Certified copy of order dated 04.09.2018 passed Ex PW1/F
by Ld. ADJ-02, North West District, Rohini
Courts, Delhi.
(vii) Certified copy of application under Order XXIII, Ex PW1/G
Rule 3 read with Section 151, CPC, preferred by
petitioner in Civil Suit titled Naveen Gill & Anr.
v. Praveen Gill & Anr. -- CS No. 78007/16.
(viii) Photocopy of registered sale deed dated Ex PW1/H (OSR)
01.09.2006.
(ix) Relieving letter dated 30.04.2019, issued by Ex. PW1/I
Hotel Radisson Blu Dwarka, New Delhi.
13. Mr. Vipul Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner has been put to grave hardship to make ends meet, as she as a single parent has to pay monthly rent, school/tuition fees and daily expenses of the minors. The learned counsel further added that other than the immovable properties left behind by the deceased, the petitioner does not have any assets to bank up for the daily upkeep and bringing of her minor children.
8ibid.
9Ex.PW1/A GP No. 08/2019 Page No.5/10
14. Mr. Lamba, submitted that though the subject properties are not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the South West district, but the subject minors have their permanent residence within the jurisdiction of the Wards court. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner being the widow of Naveen Gill and mother of the subject minors has the best interest of the subject minors foisted and has no other resort but to alienate and liquidate the share of the subject minors in the properties rightfully devolved upon them.
15. Mr. Lamba, learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 8(5) of the HMG Act in respect of an application obtaining permission of the Court under Section 8(2) of the HMG Act, the Wards Act shall apply, as if it were an application under Section 29 of the Wards Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an entitled person, as per Section 6 of the Act and Section 8 of the Wards Act and the petitioner has adduced evidence in support of the petition, as mandated under the Section 13 of the Wards Act. The learned counsel laid emphasis that the petitioner regardless of being a widow at a young age decided not to remarry and has kept the best interest of her children (subject minors herein), as paramount. The learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his submissions on the note that there is no legal impediment in granting permission to the petitioner to sell the subject property as the same would be in the best interest of the subject minors.
16. In granting permission sought by the guardian to sell the minor's property, necessity or an evident advantage to the minor, is an essential requirement under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Wards Act.
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Smt Sakshi Devi v. State of NCT of Delhi10 held that the object of taking permission from the Court for selling of the property is to ensure that interest of minor is protected and the property is sold for legal necessity. The Hon'ble High Court further held that taking care of the minor and upkeep and maintenance is a legal necessity, more so in the facts of the case in which minor had a very small share and which is otherwise 10 FAO No. 123/2014 date of decision 25.04.2014 GP No. 08/2019 Page No.6/10 useless for the minor. The Court held that a legal necessity or benefit of minor exists for selling the minor's share.
18. On the above parameters, this Court observes that the petitioner No. 1 is the mother of the subject minors, being a natural guardian has natural bond of love, affection and due care towards the subject minors. The unfortunate experience of the death of petitioner's husband, namely, Naveen Gill and minors' father at a young age, has apparently brought the petitioner No. 1 at a cusp of life and being burdened with a unique position to shoulder the daily upbringing, care-giving and to fend all responsibilities and challenges for the subject minors - See Section 6(a) of the HMG Act.
19. Due to the demise of Naveen Gill, his rights and 1/4 th undivided share in the Rohini property devolved upon his widow (petitioner No. 1 herein) and two minor children, viz., subject minors herein, resultant of which the trio has acquired 1/12th share each in the Rohini property. As the Rohini property was embroiled in litigation during the lifetime of Naveen, even after having arrived at a settlement by a MoU, the legal heirs of Sadhu Ram and Bachno Devi have not been able to enjoy the fruits of the property, as the same cannot be divided amongst them and on account of the demise of Naveen, his share having devolved upon his widow and two minor children, the Rohini property cannot be sold with the permission of the Wards court.
20. Similarly, with regard to the Jaipur property, the petitioner No. 1 has become an owner to an extent of 2/3 rd and the subject minors have acquired 1/6th share each in the same.
21. That said, this Court observes that the petitioner No. 1 has not only as the mother of the subject minors culled out the ingredients of Section 29 and 31 of the Wards Act, but also has a favorable case to seek permission, as the petitioner No. 1 has portrayed the case of necessity due to financial hardship, lack of employment11 in the peculiar facts and circumstances and the grant of permission to sell the subject properties would be for an evident advantage to the subject minors.
11See Ex.PW1/I. GP No. 08/2019 Page No.7/10
22. This Court also finds that with no objection from any corner and there being no legal impediment, the permission sought by the petitioner No. 1 to sell the Rohini property and the Jaipur property be granted.
23. Accordingly, this Court orders that the petitioner being the natural guardian of the subject minors, namely, Shivodit Gill and Yuvika Gill may sell their share in both the immovable properties -
(i) property bearing No.28, Pocket 8, Block No. B, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi - 110035, and
(ii) a flat admeasuring 1350yds2 bearing Flat No. 03, First Floor, Plot No. 779, Rani Sati Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan fetching the highest market value. Let a guardianship certificate in Form
- 'F' be issued in favour of the petitioner, namely, Ragini Gill and her attention be drawn, particularly to the provisions of Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 44 and 45 of the Wards Act.
24. The guardianship certificate shall be issued to Ragini Gill subject to filing of two separate indemnity bonds in terms of Section 34(a) of the Act read with Rule 5 Part B Chapter 2 Volume II of the Delhi High Court Rules, the first indemnity bond in the sum of ₹7,85,280/- (Rupees Seven lakhs eighty five thousand two hundred and eighty only)12, computed as 1/12th share each of both the subject minors in the Rohini property OR 1/12 th share each of both the subject minors of the total sale consideration as sold by the petitioner No. 1 along with other co-sharers, whichever is higher, and the second indemnity bond in the sum of ₹9,07,706.67/- (Rupees Nine lakhs seven thousand seven hundred and six and sixty seven paise only) 13 rounded off to the nearest paisa, computed as 1/6th share each of both the subject minors in the Jaipur property OR 1/6th share each of both the subject minors of the total sale consideration as sold by the petitioner No. 1, whichever is higher. Accordingly, the bond shall 12 Computed as (₹47,11,680 x 1/12) + (₹47,11,680 x 1/12) = ₹7,85,280/- (Rupees Seven lakhs eighty five thousand two hundred and eighty only).
13Computed as (₹27,23,120 x 1/6) + (₹27,23,120 x 1/6) = ₹9,07,706.67/- (Rupees Nine lakhs seven thousand seven hundred and six and sixty seven paise only) rounded off to the nearest paisa.
GP No. 08/2019 Page No.8/10be in Form - 'D' annexed to the said Rules.14
25. In view of Section 34(b) of the Wards Act, the petitioner is further directed to deliver to the Court, within 3 (three) months from this date, a certified copy of the sale deed, title deed of transfer signed and executed by her with regard to sale, transfer of subject property along with statement of the movable and immovable properties, if any, belonging to the subject minors, and also of the monies received by her upon completion of the transfer by way of sale of the share, right, interest of subject minors which she has received on their behalf up to the date of delivering the statement. The bond shall, to the extent possible, be in Form 'E' annexed to the said Rules.15
26. This Court also deems it necessary to direct Ragini Gill that in case there is no bank account of the subject minors, namely, Shivodit Gill and Yuvika Gill to open a bank account with the nationalized bank closest to their place of residence or at State Bank of India, Dwarka Courts Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, Delhi - 110075 in the respective names of the subject minors through the guardian for deposit of ₹16,92,986.67/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs ninety two thousand nine hundred and eight six and sixty seven paise only) 16 in a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) with a bank where the subject minors have their bank account yielding highest rate of interest. In case, Ragini Gill succeeds in selling the subject properties at higher price than ₹16,92,986.67/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs ninety two thousand nine hundred and eight six and sixty seven paise only), which is the collective share of the subject minors, Ragini Gill shall deposit the proportionate share of the subject minors i.e. 1/12 th share each from such sale proceeds of the Rohini property, and 1/6 th share each from such sale proceeds of the Jaipur property, in their respective bank accounts to meet daily expenses, school/tuition fees, contingency expenses, if any and maintain proper accounts of the same. The petitioner shall not liquidate the 14 Chapter 2, Guardians and Wards, Part B - Rules, Volume II of the High Court Rules and Orders (Part D, Rules Relating to Special Jurisdiction in Delhi High Court) 15 ibid.
16₹7,85,280/ + ₹9,07,706.67/ = ₹16,92,986.67/ GP No. 08/2019 Page No.9/10 aforementioned FDRs deposited in favor of the subject minors until they attain majority or without orders of this Court.
27. This Court also orders that in order to enable the petitioner to open a bank account in the name of subject minors through the guardian, Ragini Gill, let an attested copy of the guardianship certificate be supplied to her for compliance and necessary action.
28. The petition stands allowed in above terms. All pending interim application stands dismissed as infructuous. Petitioner No. 1 to bear her own costs. File be consigned to record room only after due compliance and necessary action.
Digitally signed by HARGURVARINDERHARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI SINGH JAGGI Date: 2021.02.16 16:25:17 +0530 Pronounced in the open (Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi) Court on February 16th, 2021 Addl. District Judge-02 South West District Dwarka Courts Complex, Delhi GP No. 08/2019 Page No.10/10