A Delhi court has taken to task the parties in an over 55-year-old property dispute which spilled over to the next two generations of the family by calling them "chronic litigants" and their conflict an outcome of merely an "ego tussle".
The court's observations were made while deciding the appeals of Delhi residents, who belong to same family and are engaged in the dispute since 1959 when a suit for partition was filed by their ancestors.
They had challenged the trial court order by which they had agreed to certain conditions in 1993 and alleged that the other party has breached the compromise terms.
"I may observe that the parties to the appeals are closely related to each other having a common ancestor and are chronic litigants in respect of the issues which have cropped up only due to ego tussles between their families," Additional District Judge Kamini Lau said.
The judge added there was a trail of litigations between the parties who are "determined not to leave the court".
The property is situated in South Delhi's Maidan Garhi village which was purchased by one Nanak Singh and after his death it was divided between his four legal heirs.
However, the relations between the siblings got strained in 1953 and a demarcation wall was constructed around the property by two of the four siblings.
The legal tussle between the two brothers, Roop Singh and Bhal Singh, was initiated in 1959 after one of the family tried to demolish the demarcation wall.
Even after their deaths, the legal battle is still continuing between their children who are now in their 70s.
The parties in their appeals made allegations against each other that they have dishonoured the compromise entered by them before the trial court and filed their appeals.
The court, however, rejected their contentions and said the dispute between the parties relates to more than 50 years old and the initial order was passed by another court several years ago and the status of the spot has been changed in such a long time period.
"The status of the spot having changed, the litigation cannot be permitted to continue by selective reliance upon the earlier consent orders and hence in this background, I find no error in the August 1993 judgment of the trial court taking a note of the subsequent changes which have been taken place at the spot and the existing status...," Lau said.
