Siblings' Property Disagreement Resolved by High Court.
A recent High Court judgment addressed a property dispute between siblings arising from a government land acquisition scheme. The case involved an elder brother allegedly excluding his sisters from their rightful share in the plot.
Background:
The case stemmed from the government acquiring the father's land under a scheme that entitled the family to a substitute plot. While the exact area allotted was 6870 square meters, a sister (the Plaintiff) filed suit claiming a one-fourth share in both the plot and the compensation received.
A Development Agreement and Shifting Claims:
During the legal proceedings, the siblings entered into a Development Agreement. This agreement saw the Plaintiff, her elder brother (Defendant No. 1), and another sister (Defendant No. 5) assign their shares in the plot to a developer. The agreement clearly specified the shareholding, with the elder brother receiving the largest portion (2780 sq. mtrs.) and the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 5 receiving 900 sq. mtrs. each. Notably, the Plaintiff did receive the agreed-upon consideration for her share.
The situation took a turn when the Plaintiff amended her petition during the appeal. She now claimed an additional area of 1730 sq. mtrs. based on a later communication from the government agency (CIDCO) received in 2012.
Lower Courts' Decisions and the Appeal:
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim. The lower courts considered the Development Agreement and the Plaintiff's acceptance of the allocated share as a sign of her agreement. Additionally, the courts found no basis for the additional area claim due to the Plaintiff's admissions and the unavailability of further land for partition.
The Plaintiff appealed to the High Court, arguing that the First Appellate Court erred in not considering the amended pleadings regarding the potential additional area.
High Court's Judgment: Agreement Upheld, Potential Future Share Recognized
The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions. They found the Development Agreement and the Plaintiff's statements to be clear evidence of her accepting the designated share. The court also held that the Plaintiff could not revive her claim for a larger share based on the CIDCO letter after having previously agreed to the terms of the development deal.
However, the High Court acknowledged the possibility of CIDCO allocating additional land to the family in the future. Interestingly, the elder brother agreed to grant the Plaintiff a one-sixth share (288 sq. mtrs.) from this potential additional allotment.
Conclusion:
While the High Court's judgment maintained the status quo regarding the original plot allotment, it left the door open for the Plaintiff to receive a share if the government agency allocates further land. This case highlights the importance of clear agreements and the potential consequences of altering claims during legal proceedings.
Right to Information Act, 2005