_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Sunita Devendra Deshprabhu and Ors. Vs.Sitadevi Deshprabhu and Ors.
Citation – Writ Petition Nos. 934/2015, 935/2015, and 32/2016
Parties Involved –
Petitioner - Sunita Devendra Deshprabhu and Ors.
Respondent - Sitadevi Deshprabhu and Ors.
Relevant Acts and Sections – Article 227 of the Indian Constitution
Facts of the Case
Raghunathrao was also known as Raghuraj Deshpraphu was married to plaintiff No.1-Sitadevi Deshprabhu on 09.05.1951.
Before that, the parties had entered into a prenuptial agreement dated 07.05.1951, by which they had agreed to a regime of separation of assets. Raghunathrao Deshprabhu died on 10.11.1987. Plaintiff No.1-Sitadevi Deshprabhu had passed away after the suit was filed.
Raghunathrao Deshprabhu and his wife Sitadevi Deshprabhu had two sons, Jitendra and Devendra, and two daughters, Achaladevi and Anjalika. Anjalika was married to Satish Urgankar, while Achaladevi was married to Dilip Kulkarni. Sunita was the wife of Devendra, while Rupa was the wife of Jitendra.
Issue of the Case
Whether the petitioners be allowed to amend the written statement by incorporation of plea?
Arguments of the Petitioner
As per the plaint allegations, plaintiff No.1, namely, Sitadevi Deshprabhu (now deceased), became the sole and the exclusive owner of 126 properties as shown in Schedule-B. In comparison, plaintiff No.2 became the sole and exclusive owner of 128 properties enrolled in Schedule-E, while plaintiff No.4 became the sole and exclusive owner of 118 properties registered in Schedule-F.
Arguments of the Respondent
Respondent No.2 and No.4 have filed written statements contending that the plaintiffs have suppressed several material facts, including the prenuptial agreement dated 07.05.1951, a will dated 28.05.1975 left by late Raghunathrao Deshprabhu, and a deed of succession cum deed of renunciation dated 08.04.1993. The specific defense was that there never existed any legally constituted Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or Joint Family.
It was contended that the consent decree dated 26.02.1976 was a nullity and was never acted upon by any of the parties. It was claimed that the consent decree, having not been registered under The Registration Act, 1908, cannot be relied upon. It was contended that there were no pre-existing rights because of the prenuptial agreement dated 07.05.1951, and as such, the consent decree would not create any right, title, or interest to the properties, as referred to therein.
Judgment of the Case
No case for interference was made out in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In this case, the Court considered the Prenuptial agreement for deciding the issue relating to the separation of assets among the parties. However, there was no point in the validity of the prenuptial agreement in the judgment.
Similar Cases
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article" Is A Prenup Valid In India?" by clicking the button below.