E-Paper
Chandigarh | Sale deed executed by deceased man’s wife allowed in 2019 case
It was observed that the ‘lifetime interest’, which restricts a person from selling, transferring property, was not mentioned in the man’s will, thus his wife can sell the property
Quashing the impugned orders of the UT estate office, the court of special secretary, finance, has allowed transfer of 100% share of ownership of a house to an appellant, against a sale deed executed by a deceased man’s wife.
The case dates back to March 2019, when Harjeet Singh, a resident of Sector 71, Mohali, had filed an appeal, requesting for transfer 100% shares of a house in Sector 36-D, Chandigarh.
His counsel, Vikas Jain, said the house was allotted in favour of late Iqbal Singh Gill and his wife Manjeet Kaur on February 12, 1985, in two equal shares on the basis of the registered sale deed.
Gill expired on November 15, 2017, and after his death, Kaur applied for the transfer of property in her name to the extent of 50% share left by her husband on the basis of a registered “will” dated January 28, 2013.
In response to that, a 50% share left by Gill was transferred in her favour vide a letter dated August 23, 2018, wherein the word “lifetime interest (which restricts a person from selling, transferring or alienating the property to the detriment of the absolute owner) was mentioned in a routine manner.
Thereafter, Kaur sold 100% share of the property to the appellant and received the consideration amount. Gill, during his lifetime, had sold his 50% share and received the consideration amount and after his death, his wife executed the sale deed on September 19, 2018.
Thereafter, the appellant applied for the transfer of property on the basis of the registered sale deed on September 26, 2018.
The estate office rejected the claim by pleading that Manjeet Kaur was the absolute owner of 50% share and had “lifetime interest” in the remaining share of ownership in the property and as such, she could not transfer 50% of the share of the property as held by Gill as per stipulations contained in “will”.
‘Deceased man’s will did not mention lifetime interest’
Jain submitted that there was no specific mention of “lifetime interest” in the “will” executed in favour of Manjeet Kaur and their sons also have no objection if 100% share of the property is transferred in the name of appellant.
On the other hand, the counsel for estate office contented that they had rightly rejected the claim of appellant as 50% share held by Gill was transferred in favour of Manjeet Kaur as “lifetime interest” and therefore, she could not transfer that 50% share in favour of appellant.
After hearing both the parties, UT special secretary finance Hargunjit Kaur, while exercising the powers of chief administrator, held, “From the perusal of record, it is evident that initially the property was held by Iqbal Singh and Manjeet Kaur in two equal shares. Gill executed “will” whereby he intended that his 50% share is to be inherited by Manjeet Kaur after his death and the counsel for estate office failed to show anything which can show that Gill had transferred 50% share as lifetime interest.”
The estate office on August 23, 2018, transferred 50% share held by Gill in favour of his wife on the basis of the registered will by mentioning the word “lifetime interest” without assigning any reason as to how that word emerged.
Jain produced the order, dated December 19, 2019, passed by the UT adviser in a revision petition which seems identical with present case as also explained by the counsel in his pleadings.
The counsel for estate office also failed to show as to how the present case is not similar to the order passed by the adviser.
Questioning how the estate office can adopt two yardsticks in two similar cases, the UT estate office was directed to allow 100% share in favour of the appellant.
