UT quashes Estate Office order, allows transfer of 100% share of ownership to heir
Dushyant Singh Pundir
Chandigarh, October 19
In a relief for heirs struggling to sell properties owing to a clause restricting transfer or sale, the court of Special Secretary Finance has allowed complete ownership rights of property to a woman observing “life time interest” was not mentioned in the will.
Life interest is a limited right allowing the beneficiary power to keep the property during lifetime, but prevents them from selling or transferring it to someone else. The property gets vested in the next generation or as defined in the will or deed.
‘Life time interest’ not in will
- In 1985, house allotted to Iqbal Singh Gill and his wife in two equal shares. In will, Gill intended his wife to inherit his 50% share after death
- On Gill’s death in 2017, his 50% share was transferred to his wife in 2018, with Estate Office mentioning ‘life time interest’ in sale deed
- His wife sold 100% share of property to the appellant, who applied for transfer of property on the basis of registered sale deed
- The Estate Office rejected the plea, claiming Gill’s wife was absolute owner of 50% share and had ‘life time interest’ in remaining share
- Court observed the counsel for Estate Office failed to show anything to show Gill had transferred 50% share as ‘life time interest’
The clause
If in will, ‘life time interest’, a limited right, allows beneficiary to keep property for lifetime, but prevents right to sell, transfer or alienate property. The property gets vested in next generation or as defined in will or deed
Appellant Harjeet Singh, a resident of Mohali, had made a request to the Estate Office for transfer of 100% share of ownership in respect of a house in Sector 36-D, Chandigarh, but was rejected by the Estate Office stating 50% share had “life time interest”.
In an appeal filed in the court of Hargunjit Kaur, Special Secretary Finance, exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator, appellant’s council Vikas Jain stated the house in question was allotted in favour of Iqbal Singh Gill and his wife Manjeet Kaur on February 12, 1985, in two equal shares on the basis of registered sale deed.
Gill died on November 15, 2017, and subsequently, Manjeet applied for transfer of her husband’s 50% share to her name on the basis of registered will dated January 28, 2013, executed by him.
The 50% share left by Gill was transferred in her favour on August 23, 2018, wherein the word “life time interest” was mentioned. Thereafter, Manjeet sold 100% share of property to the appellant.
Harjeet then applied for transfer of property on the basis of registered sale deed on September 26, 2018. Manjeet and her two sons also submitted affidavits that they had relinquished their share/claims in the property.
In response to the application, the Estate Office examined the case and rejected the claim by pleading Manjeet was absolute owner of 50% share and had “life time interest” in the remaining share and as such she could not transfer 50% share as held by Gill as per stipulations contained in will.
The appellant’s counsel submitted there was no specific mention of “life time interest” in the will.
The counsel for Estate Office contented the office had rightly rejected the claim as 50% share held by Gill was transferred in favour of Manjeet as “life time interest” and therefore, she could not transfer that 50% share in favour of Harjeet.
After hearing both parties, the court observed: “Initially, the property was held by Iqbal Singh and Manjeet Kaur in two equal shares. Gill executed will whereby he intended his 50% share be inherited by his wife after his death. The counsel for Estate Office failed to show anything that could suggest Gill had transferred 50% share as life time interest.”
However, 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 “life time interest” without assigning any reason as to how that word emerged.
Jain produced order dated December 19, 2019, passed by UT Adviser in a revision petition, which seemed to be identical with present case as also explained by the counsel in his pleadings.
“How the Estate Office can adopt two yardsticks in the two similarly situated cases, thus, both cases should be dealt with on the same lines,” observed the court and quashed the impugned orders of the Estate Office and directed it to the extent of 100% share in respect of the house in favour of Harjeet Singh.
