Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal from order filed by the original defendants no.2 and 3 challenging the order dated 3.6.2016 passed by the Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Panaji, which restrained them from alienating, creating third party rights, or interfering with any of the properties left behind by late Shri Alvaro Jose Teofilo Pinto, to the exclusion of the applicants, on the basis of a Deed of Family Settlement and Relinquishment dated 21.6.2005 and/or a Deed of Succession dated 22.10.2012, pending disposal of the suit. The appellants contended that their parents had distributed the property owned by them during their lifetime through the deed of settlement, and the respondents/plaintiffs had disposed of the property allotted to them under the family arrangement. The respondents had also failed to disclose the family settlement in inventory proceedings they initiated and filed a suit in 2014 to challenge the settlement. The trial court had relied on Article 2042 of the Family Laws to hold the deed of family settlement invalid. The appellants argued that Article 2042 was not applicable, and the plaintiffs could not challenge the settlement after taking benefits thereunder, invoking the doctrine of estoppel and contending that the suit was barred by delay and laches. They relied on Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Narendra Kante v. Anuradha Kante and others. The respondents distinguished those judgments, asserting that the family settlement only concerned some properties and that Article 2042 prohibited renunciation of future legitime. They also cited Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd) v. Faridkot V. Baldev Dass, Pralhad Jaganath Jawale v. Sitabai Chander Nikam, and Krishena Kumar v. Union of India. The High Court heard arguments, admitted the appeal, and reserved judgment on 20th January 2017, later pronouncing on 17th February 2017. The final decision and ratio are not available in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge correctly granted an order of injunction restraining the appellants from alienating or interfering with the properties left behind by late Alvaro Jose Teofilo Pinto, pending the suit challenging the Deed of Family Settlement and Relinquishment dated 21.6.2005 and the Deed of Succession dated 22.10.2012, and whether the said Deed of Family Settlement was invalid under Article 2042 of the Family Laws.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (02) 95
Shri S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. R. Kantak for appellants; Shri Ashwin N. Ramani for respondents
Dr. Jose Floriano Cristovam Pinto, Mrs. Christabel Maria De Menezes E Pinto
Dr. Michelle N. Pinto Souza (Deceased) through legal heir Ms. Jenelle Nicole Mariah De Souza and Mr. Joel Jesuino Milagres De Souza
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against interim injunction order restraining alienation of properties pending suit challenging family settlement.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original defendants no.2 and 3) sought setting aside of injunction order dated 3.6.2016.
Filing Reason
The trial court granted injunction restraining them from alienating properties or interfering with the properties based on the Deed of Family Settlement, which they claimed was valid.
Previous Decisions
Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Panaji, by order dated 3.6.2016, granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, creating third party rights, or interfering with properties left behind by late Alvaro Jose Teofilo Pinto, on the basis of the Deed of Family Settlement and Relinquishment dated 21.6.2005 and/or the Deed of Succession dated 22.10.2012, pending disposal of the suit.
Issues
Whether the Deed of Family Settlement dated 21.6.2005 is invalid under Article 2042 of the Family Laws?
Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are estopped from challenging the Family Settlement having taken benefits thereunder?
Whether the trial court correctly exercised discretion in granting injunction despite alleged delay and laches on the part of the plaintiffs?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that the parents had distributed their property during their lifetime through the deed of settlement, the plaintiffs had sold the property allotted to them and could not challenge the settlement, Article 2042 of the Family Laws was not applicable, the doctrine of estoppel barred the challenge, and the suit suffered from gross delay and laches.
Respondents argued that the family settlement only pertained to some properties, Article 2042 applied because no renunciation of future legitime could be made, the judgments in Kale and others and Narendra Kante were distinguishable, and the division of properties was unequal.
Judgment Excerpts
the trial Court had unduly relied on Article 2042 of the Family Laws and held that the Deed of Family Settlement was invalid when such Article was not applicable to the case at hand.
the plaintiffs had taken only a technical objection in the plaint challenging the Family Settlement.
Article 2042 of the Family Laws applied to the plaintiffs' case and the Deed of Family Settlement was bad since no renunciation of future legitime could be made.
Procedural History
Parents executed a Deed of Family Settlement and Relinquishment on 21.6.2005. Deed of Succession executed on 22.10.2012. Plaintiffs filed suit in 2014 challenging the family settlement. Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Panaji, granted injunction order dated 3.6.2016 restraining the defendants. Defendants (appellants) filed Appeal from Order No. 51 of 2016 before the High Court. Appeal admitted; notice waived by respondents. Heard on 20.1.2017 and judgment reserved. Pronounced on 17.2.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Family Laws: Article 2042
