Delhi District Court
Cs Dj No. 9799 /1 6 vs Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal on 3 February, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 04 - SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of:
CS DJ No. 9799 /1 6
RAVINDER PAL SINGH PAINTAL
S/o Late S. Harbans Singh Paintal
R/o 6250-306A, Bienville Ave,
Brossard, Quebec
CANADA, J4Z-3J9
Presently at C-7/7 Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi .......Plaintiff
Versus
Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal
S/o Late S. Harbans Singh Paintal
R/o 5, Capri Road, Suite- 1006
Islington, Ontario
CANADA M98 6B5
Gajinder Pal Singh Paintal
S/o Late S. Harbans Singh Paintal
R/o 187, Dhaula Kuan-II,
New Delhi
Smt. Manjeet Ahluwalia
W/o S. Bhagwant Singh,
D/o Late S. Harbans Singh Paintal
R/o 1529, Sector 38B,
Chandigarh- 160036
CS DJ No. 9799/16
Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal
2
Smt. Jasleen Kaur
W/o Sh. Sohdeep Singh
D/o Late S. Harbans Singh Paintal
R/o 1529 Sector 38-B,
Chandigarh - 160036.
SUIT FOR PARTITION
Date of institution of suit : 03.05.1991
Judgment reserved on : 27.01.2023
Judgment passed on : 03.02.2023
Final Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit is a suit for partition filed in the year 1991, between three brothers and two sisters regarding the property which stood jointly in the name of their father as well as their mother, bearing property no. C-7/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
Case Of Plaintiff/ Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal :
2. It is the case of plaintiff that the suit property was allotted in the joint name of their father- Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal and their mother- Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal by way of sub-lease deed dated 20.05.1969. The premium was paid jointly by father and the mother. They built Basement, Ground, First and Barsati floors, garage and servant quarters on the suit property admeasuring 420 sq yards. On 14.03.1975, DDA also CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 3 granted the completion certificate. Further it is specifically pleaded that both of them had contributed money in equal shares in the said property. Thereafter the property was let out to tenants. However, the rents received were deposited in a Bank in their joint Savings Account.
3. Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal died on 14.07.1984 leaving behind a Will dated 17.03.1977 in favour of plaintiff which was a registered Will, by way of which she bequeathed her undivided half portion of the suit property in favour of plaintiff. Her movable properties were bequeathed by her to the other four children as mentioned in the Will which are yet to be distributed. It is further averred that other two brothers and two sisters executed a declaration that they had no objection to the bequest in favour of plaintiff. Also, Estate Duty Return in respect of the property left by Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal was filed by her husband Late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal. It is submitted that plaintiff is a Canadian Citizen who is an NRI. He had executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of his late father Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal for the proper management of half share of his property as he was a resident of Canada.
4. Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal, vide letter dt 24.08.1984, informed the Govt. Servants Co-op House Building Society regarding the death of his wife Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal and requested them to transfer the ownership of her half share in favour of plaintiff. He had also sent a letter to the DDA informing them about the transfer of the share of CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 4 his wife in favour of plaintiff. Further the plaintiff applied to RBI which permitted the plaintiff to hold and own the property in question as owner which was also reflected in the Income Tax Return for the year 1985-1986 of plaintiff. The ITR was filed by father of plaintiff as the power of attorney holder of plaintiff.
5. Thereafter DDA and the Society mutated one-half of the suit property in favour of plaintiff. Thereafter with the money of plaintiff, his father converted the Barsati floor in a full-fledged second floor in 1986. Thereafter this property was let out to a tenant by way of lease agreement dt 02.09.1988 by his father Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal as GPA Holder of plaintiff.
6. Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal, father of the parties died on 17.02.1989. Before his death, Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal-father of the parties executed a registered Will dt 19.10.1987, original of which is also on record. It is further averred that plaintiff has signed it as a marginal witness, however the contents thereof were not disclosed to the plaintiff and he did not give any consent to any bequests made by the testator with respect to the suit property, hence he denies this Will.
7. It is further averred that Late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal/ father of the parties, was only owner of one-half portion and could not have made this Will in respect of whole of the property. Further, the plaintiff being beneficiary of the Will has himself signed as a witness, CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 5 hence as per law the Will is invalid.
8. It is further pleaded that the Will of the father dated 19.10.1987 is inoperative and is denied. Consequently, the father's one half interest in the suit property will devolve upon the legal heirs as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Further the plaintiff is also owner of the rest of the 50 per cent share of the suit property. It is further mentioned in the plaint that two daughters are in exclusive possession of the basement. The ground floor is rented out and defendant no. 2 is collecting rent for the same. The rent of the first floor is collected by the plaintiff. Second floor rent is being collected by defendant no. 1/ Sh. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal.
9. It is further pleaded that plaintiff requested the defendants several times to divide the property as per averments made in the present plaint but defendants failed to do so. It is further submitted that in the Lease Deed dated 01.12.1988, it is also mentioned about Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal HUF, hence the question if any HUF is there or not, also needs to be examined. If there is HUF, the partition is to be done accordingly as per Law. The present suit is valued for the purpose of partition at Rs. 85 lacs raised according to the market value of the property and a fixed Court fee of Rs. 20 is paid thereon. Hence the present suit of partition is filed to divide the property by meets and bounds or by way of selling of the property as per Law. Also it is prayed that the accounts be settled.
CS DJ No. 9799/16Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 6 Case Of Defendant No. 1/ Sh. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal:
10. It is the case of defendant no.1 that the property is still lease hold and therefore cannot be partitioned.
11. Defendant no. 1 denies that any lawful, legal and valid Will has been made by mother of the parties in favour of plaintiff or that she was the owner of any of the properties mentioned in annexure A or that she had any right to bequeath this property in favour of plaintiff.
12. It is further the case of defendant no. 1 that Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal was merely co-lessee as a benamindar of the property and she had not contributed any money towards the purchase of this property or for construction of the same as she had no independent source of income and was completely dependent upon her husband. It was the father late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal who paid for the purchase and construction of the property out of his own earnings.
13. It is further the averred that as is clear from the Will dt 19.10.1987 that the mother of the parties wanted only one portion of the property to go to the plaintiff. Further, the mother of the parties had made one more Will after this Will of 1987 (however, same is not placed on record). It is further submitted that father had also executed two Wills dated 29.10.1980 and 07.10.1986, perusal of the same would clearly show that the intent of the parents was to CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 7 distribute the property equally amongst the sons.
14. Further it is denied that any No Objection certificate was signed by defendant no. 1 in favour of plaintiff and such No Objection is stated to be forged and fabricated, further DDA was also informed about the same.
15. It is further pleaded that as per the Will of father dt 19.10.1987 of which the plaintiff was confirming party and he admits the same, second floor has to go to defendant no. 1 on payment of amount mentioned therein. The said amount was paid by defendant no.1 to their father who gave it to the plaintiff to be given to defendant no. 3 and 4 as per his Will dated 19.10.1987. Hence, defendant no.1 is the owner of second floor with Servant Quarter. Further, as per the Will, First floor is to go to plaintiff alongwith Servant Quarter. Further the plaintiff is in possession of first floor of the property as per the Will of his father and is estopped by his own conduct to claim anything more than the first floor, first floor servant quarter and the rear side temporary garage. The parties are in respective exclusive possession of the portions allotted to them by their father. Ground Floor is in possession of defendant no.2, first floor is in possession of plaintiff, second floor is in possession of defendant no. 1 and basement is in possession of defendant no. 3 and 4. Hence the parties are in possession of their respective portions as per Will of their father.
16. Further the plaintiff had gone to New Bank of India, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and took postal certificate of Late CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 8 Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal as per the Will which shows his intention to act and abide by the Will of their father.
17. Further it is denied that second floor was constructed with the funds of the plaintiff. It is submitted that father of the parties had got it constructed by raising loans from Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar, loans from relatives and friends and from his own invested money, which was received after the sale of Chandigarh property.
18. It is averred by defendant no. 1 that he has no knowledge of any letter being issued by father of the parties/ Late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal to the Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society thereby requesting them to transfer the ownership of half share of Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal, in favour of plaintiff. It is denied that any declaration regarding the same was made by the answering defendant. The documents were forged and fabricated by plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining permission from Delhi Development Authority as well as co-operative society.
19. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 is not aware if plaintiff obtained any permission from Reserve Bank of India to hold and own the said property in India. DDA could not have mutated the property in favour of a foreigner and the mutation order is null and void. It is further submitted that plaintiff had acknowledged and confirmed before Sub-Registrar that only first floor belongs to him. Hence mutation in his favour is not valid.
CS DJ No. 9799/16Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 9
20. It is further submitted that the property was comprising of only two floors and it was the intention of the father to distribute it equally amongst three sons hence father of the answering defendant got the second floor constructed by raising loans from Syndicate Bank and from friends and relatives and invested his own money which he received by selling Chandigarh property. It is further submitted that the father retired as Superintendent and had sufficient funds of his own.
21. It is further submitted that plaintiff has no rights to the rents of the other floors and accounts be denied to him. It is pleaded that the name of plaintiff was included simply for the purpose of taxation and the sense of insecurity the father had towards the unsettled youngest son i.e. plaintiff.
22. It was never intended that plaintiff shall ever become the real owner of the half of the property. Further the father retired as a Superintendent of Police and was well aware of the complications which might arise due to the ostensible ownership of plaintiff and for that very reason, while writing his Will, the father made plaintiff a party to it as well and plaintiff consented to the contents of the Will.
23. It is denied that plaintiff's signature on the Will made the Will invalid. It is submitted that plaintiff had acted on the Will and he is estopped from denying the same now.
CS DJ No. 9799/16Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 10
24. It is further submitted that plaintiff signed the Will along with his father. Plaintiff is co-author of the Will. There are two attesting witnesses to the Will and plaintiff is not an attesting witness to his Will. It is further averred that by way of the Will of the mother, plaintiff had got only one floor and not undivided 50 per cent share. It is further averred that the property was already distributed during the lifetime of the father and immediately after the death of the father, each legal heir occupied its own respective share in the suit property. It is further submitted that plaintiff is taking undue and unjust advantage of the situation created purely and simply for taxation convenience by the father.
25. Further it is averred that the theory of HUF is inducted by the plaintiff with the sole purpose of confusing the main issue. It is averred that the suit property was the self acquired property and the properties left by the Late father of the parties are not at all HUF properties. Hence it is prayed that the suit be dismissed with special cost under Section 35 A CPC.
CASE OF DEFENDANT NO. 2/ Sh. Gojinder Pal Singh Paintal:-
26. The case of defendant no. 2 as is mentioned in his written statement is that the property belongs to Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal and his wife. By Will dated 17.03.1977 of Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal, she bequeathed first floor, barsati and servant quarter in favour of plaintiff and not her entire share in suit property. It was further CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 11 declared in the Will that if plaintiff died earlier, his portion of the property would go to answering defendant.
27. According to the Will of the father Late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal dated 19.10.1987, the said Will is admitted and confirmed by the plaintiff by his signatures on the said Will and the same was confirmed by plaintiff by appearing before Sub-Registrar for registration of the same. Further as per Will of the father, the second floor of the suit property has gone to the defendant no. 1 on payment of Rs. 60,000/- in cash for the sisters of plaintiff and defendants. Further defendant no. 1 paid Rs. 60,000/- to Late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal by way of draft dated 13.11.1987 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal. Late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal was to make payment of the said amount to the sisters. Rest amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal by defendant no. 1 on or about 11.12.1987. Thereafter late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal paid the said amount to sisters of the party namely defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 therein. Hence the entire second floor belongs to defendant no. 1. Since plaintiff has signed on the Will of the father and acted upon it, hence he is estopped from claiming otherwise now.
28. Further as per the Will of the father Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal, ground floor was given to defendant no. 2 excluding two basements. Two basements were to go to defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4. Further it is CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 12 mentioned in the Will of the father that he constructed second floor with his younger son Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal to be given to defendant no. 1/ Sh. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal on payment of an amount of Rs. 60,000/- and in case he fails to make payment of the same, it was to go to his two daughters. Since the amount was paid, the second floor belongs to defendant no. 1. The answering defendant admitted both the Will of the mother and the father. Further defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 are in possession of basement floor. Hence the present suit is not maintainable. Further the answering defendant is in possession of ground floor which is also let out to a tenant by him. The first floor belongs to plaintiff who has let out the same to a tenant as well. Second floor is in exclusive possession of defendant no. 1 and he has rented out the same to a tenant as well. Hence the parties are in exclusive possession of their respective portions. Hence the present suit for partition is wholly false and misconceived.
29. Further as per the Will of the mother, plaintiff had nothing to do with the movable properties of the mother. Further it is narrated in detail how the movable assets of mother and father including the bank lockers were divided and who had to take the possession of the same.
30. It is submitted that plaintiff has mentioned that Sh.
Harbans Singh Paintal has left behind Postal Certificates valuing Rs. 20,000/- which are missing. It is submitted that it is the plaintiff who made the application on 08.04.1989 CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 13 to the New Bank of India for handing over postal certificates of Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal. Further as per the Will of the father, the responsibility of distributing the movable assets was given to the plaintiff and hence he made application before the Bank and obtained National Savings Certificates. He also gave a receiving regarding the same. The documents thereby showing his application made as well as receiving given while receiving the certificates, is filed on record. The proceeds of the same are to be given to defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4.
31. It is further stated that the Maruti Van of the father of the parties was purchased by defendant no. 2 from his father on 08.09.1986 for a sum of Rs. 61,000/- and it was registered in defendant no. 2's name and he was in possession of the car and was also using the same. However after the death of Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal, the proceeds of this car were to go to defendant no. 3 and defendant no.4. However it was defendant no. 2 who was owner of the said car and it was apprised to the plaintiff by the answering defendant. However on the insistence of plaintiff and defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4, he had to make payment of the car amount and hence he made payment of an amount of Rs. 62,500/- to the plaintiff again. Further as per the Will of the father, all the movables except telephone and household items are to go to his daughters. All the items mentioned in the Will must be in possession of defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 as CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 14 they are in possession of basement where all the goods were lying. Further a fixed court fee of Rs. 20/- is paid which is insufficient. Further Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal had money in his current account, savings bank account and other banks. The said money was misappropriated by plaintiff and defendant no. 3. The plaintiff had not included the said property in the present suit. Hence the present suit for partition is liable to be dismissed. Further jewellery is in possession of plaintiff and defendant no. 3. Further the locker where the jewellery was kept has been held jointly by plaintiff and defendant no. 3.
CASE OF DEFENDANT NO. 3 AND 4/ Smt. Manjeet Ahluwalia and Smt. Jasleen Kaur (Daughters of Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal) :-
32. It is the case of defendant no. 3 and 4 that both the defendant no. 1 and 2 have been a constant source of pain and misery to their parents, especially the father. Defendant no. 2 never contributed anything either in cash or kind to his father and rather took away whatever the father had given to him. Defendant no. 2 had ill-treated the father of the parties and used to often threaten him and once in a while raised hands on him. Defendant no.3 is a witness to all the ill-treatment meted out by defendant no. 2 to the father. Further, it was the intention of the father that basement should be given to the sisters. Further the father of the parties died in strange and suspicious circumstances in an accident on 12.02.1989. Defendant CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 15 no.2 was the last person to be with the father. ISSUES
33. From the pleadings of the parties in suit titled as "Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal" , following issues were framed vide order dt 23.01.2009 :-
1) Whether Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal was not competent to make a Will dated 17.03.1977 in respect of the portion of the suit property bequeathed by her under the said Will? OPD1D2
2) Whether the Will dated 19.10.1987 executed by Late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal is his genuine last Will and was executed by him while he was in sound disposing mind? OPD1D2
3)Whether the undated no objection certificates allegedly given by the defendants for mutation of the suit property are forged and illegally manipulated? OPD1D2
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have any share in the suit property which include movables also, and if so, to what share? OPP.
5) Relief.
EVIDENCE
34. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
CS DJ No. 9799/16Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 16 S.No. Particulars/Exhibits 1 Original Will left by Mrs. Avtar Kaur Paintal - Ex. P1 2 Original Will dated 19.10.1987 left by Sardar Harbans Singh Paintal - Ex. P2 3 Proforma for filing objections to the assessment of the property tax- Ex. P3 4 Annexure - format showing the rateable value - Ex. P4 5 Original Office copy of the objections filed by Sh.
Harbans Singh Paintal, bearing the original seal of MCD at Point A - Ex. P5 6 Copy of the valuation report- Ex. P6 7 Original notice sent by DDA- Ex. P7 8 Ex.P8 is the original Architect's report dated 31.03.1987 (referred to as Ex.P114 in my affidavit). 9 Ex.P9 is the original occupation certificate dated 14.03.1975, together with the original form -- O1 (referred to as Ex.14 in my affidavit).
10 Ex.P10 is the Annexure A to Ex.P9 (referred to as Ex.P15 in my affidavit).
11 Ex.P11 are the objections dated 05.04.1974 filed by Sh.
Harbans Singh Paintal with MCD (referred to as Ex.29 in my affidavit).
12 Ex.P12 is the original letter dated 24.09.1974 (referred to as Ex.35 in my affidavit).
13 Ex.P13 are the objections dated 19.12.1977 filed by Sh.
Harbans Singh Paintal with MCD (referred to as Ex.30 in my affidavit) 1Ex.P14 is the original house tax receipt dated 19.01.1979 issued in the name of Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal and Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal (referred to as Ex.62 in my affidavit). 15 Ex.P15 is the original house tax receipt dated 26.03.1979 (referred to as Ex.63 in my affidavit).
CS DJ No. 9799/16Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 17 16 Ex.P16 is not available on record.
(Plaintiff seeks liberty to inspect the file and take necessary steps in this respect).
17 Ex.P17 are the objections dated 01.02.1980 filed by Sh.
Harbans Singh Paintal, with MCD (referred to as Ex.P33 in my affidavit).
18 Ex.P18 is the original bill dated 25.10.1977 against water consumption (referred to as Ex.P80 in my affidavit). 19 Ex.P19 is the original water bill of August, 1986 (referred to as Ex.P90 in my affidavit).
2 Ex.P20 to Ex.P26 are the water bill for the period December, 1986, March, 1989, June, 1987, October, 1987, May 1989, January 1989 and January 1989 respectively (referred to as Ex.P20 to Ex.P26 respectively in my affidavit).
21 Ex.P27 is the original lease agreement dated 01.12.1988 between the plaintiff and Mrs. Trevor Page (referred to as Ex.P181 in my affidavit).
22 Ex.P28 is the original bill/ invoice dated 23.08.1985 towards purchase of Maruti Van (referred to as Ex.P178 in my affidavit).
23 Ex.P29 to Ex.P32 are the original receipts issued by M/s Skipper Constructions, relating to the payments against flat no.329, Jhandewalan Tower (referred to as Ex.P170 to Ex.P173 respectively in my affidavit). 24 Ex.P33 to Ex.P35 are the original demand notices of the year 1981, 1982 & 1981 respectively issued by M/s Skipper Construction (referred to as Ex.P174 to Ex.176 in my affidavit).
25 Ex.P36 is the original allotment letter issued by M/s Skipper Constructions in favour of Sh. H.S Paintal (referred to as Ex.P177 in my affidavit). 26 Ex.P37 is the original passbook pertaining to account no.
13730, syndicate Bank, in the name of Sh. H.S Paintal (referred to as Ex.P205 in my affidavit).
CS DJ No. 9799/16Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 18 27 Ex.P38 to Ex.P44 are the original letters dated 13.03.1990, 24.04.1990, 10.12.1990, 25.06.1992, 08.04.1993 and 14.02.1995 respectively, all issued by DDA (referred to as Ex.P190 to Ex.P196 in my affidavit). 28 Ex.P45 is the original invoice dated 18.09.1986 for purchase of revolver (referred to as Ex.P138 in my affidavit). 29 Ex.P46 is the original Power of Attorney dated 08.04.1986 by Sh. Gulshan V.S Paintal in favour of Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal (referred to as Ex.P164 in my affidavit).
30 Ex.P47 is the original electricity bill dated 25.01.1973 and Ex.P48 is the original water bill dated 05.01.1976 (referred to as Ex.16 & Ex.P17 respectively in my affidavit).
31 Ex.P49 is the original receipt dated 01.11.1980 pertaining to the registration of the bill (referred to as Ex.P66 in my affidavit).
32 Ex.P50 is the original GPA dated 10.08.1984 (referred to as Ex.70 in my affidavit).
33 Ex.P51 is the original receipt dated 10.08.1984 (referred to as Ex.P71 in my affidavit).
34 Ex.P52 is the original share certificate no. 1399 in respect of share no. 1090, dated 01.09.1962 issued by Government Servants Cooperatives House Building Society (referred to as Ex.P1 in my affidavit). 35 Ex.P54 is the original mutation order dated 27.09.1984 (referred to as Ex.P73 in my affidavit).
36 Ex.P55 is the original letter dated 03.10.1984 issued by the Cooperative Society (referred to as Ex.P74 in my affidavit).
37 Ex.P56 is the original letter dated 04.02.1985 issued by RBI (referred to as Ex.P77 in my affidavit). 38 Ex.P57 is the original receipt dated 14.02.1990 issued by the Cooperative Society (referred to as Ex.P84 in my affidavit).
CS DJ No. 9799/16Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 19 39 Ex.P58 is the original receipt dated 14.06.1990 issued against deposit of ground rent (referred to as Ex.P85 in my affidavit).
40 Ex.P59 to Ex.P62 are the income tax returns of the plaintiff for the assessment years ending 31.03.1985, 31.03.1986, 31.03.1987 & 31.03.1988 respectively (referred to as Ex.P115 to Ex.P118 respectively in my affidavit).
41 Ex.P59 to Ex.P62 are the income tax returns of the plaintiff for the assessment years ending 31.03.1985, 31.03.1986, 31.03.1987 & 31.03.1988 respectively (referred to as Ex.P115 to Ex.P118 respectively in my affidavit).
42 Ex.P64 is the original IT Challan for the period 198889 (referred to as Ex.P120 in my affidavit). 43 Ex.P65 is the original assessment order dated 20.06.1988 (referred to as Ex.P121 in my affidavit). 44 Ex.P66 is the original conversion certificate dated 16.07.1984 issued by State Bank of India, Palam Branch (referred to as Ex.P122 in my affidavit). 45 Ex.P67 is the original counterfoil issued by the Toronto Dominion Bank (referred to as Ex.P123 in my affidavit). 46 Ex.P68 is the original counterfoil cum receipt dated 21.08.1984 (referred to as Ex.P124 in my affidavit). 47 Ex.P68 is the original counterfoil cum receipt dated 21.08.1984 (referred to as Ex.P124 in my affidavit). 48 Ex.P70 is the photocopy of the certificate dated 07.06.1980 issued by New Bank of India (referred to as Ex.P129 in my affidavit).
49 Ex.P71 is the photocopy of the discharge certificate (referred to as Ex.P130 in my affidavit). 50 Ex.P72 is the original receipt dated 17.08.1987 issued by New Bank of India (referred to as Ex.P131 in my affidavit).
51 Ex.P73 is the original certificate dated 8.09.89 issued by New Bank of India, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (referred to CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 20 as Ex.P133 in my affidavit).
52 Ex.P74 to Ex.P76 are the original office copies of the authority letters dated 23.10.1986,12.11.1986 & 12.11.1986 (referred to as Ex.P132, Ex.P127 & Ex.P128 respectively in my affidavit).
53 Ex.P77 is the original office copy of the letter dated 10.01.1987 written to Mr. P.K Mishra (referred to as Ex.P139 in my affidavit).
54 Ex.P78 is the original agreement dated 20.05.1969 (referred to as Ex.P5 in my affidavit).
55 Ex.78A and Ex.P78B are the original perpetual sub leases dated, both 20.05.1969 (referred to as Ex.P6 (colly) in my affidavit).
56 Ex.P79 is the original receipt dated 06.02.1975 issued by DDA (referred to as Ex.P13 in my affidavit). 57 Ex.P80 is the carbon copy of the affidavit of Sh. Satya Prakash.
58 Ex.P81 is the original receipt dated 17.04.1969 issued by the society (referred to as Ex.P3 in my affidavit) 59 Ex.P82 is the order dated 03.01.1979 of IT 80 (referred to as Ex.P31 in my affidavit).
60 Ex.P83 is the original letter dated 15.07.1974 (referred to as Ex.P34 in my affidavit) 61 Ex.P84 is the income tax return for the assessment year 1979-80 (referred to as Ex.P36 in my affidavit) Ex.P85 is the photocopy of the assessment order (referred to as Ex.P37 in my affidavit) 62 Ex.P86 is the income tax return for the year 1981-82 (referred to as Ex.P38 in my affidavit) 63 Ex.P87 is the income tax return for the year 1982-83 (referred to as Ex.P39 in my affidavit) 64 Ex.P88 is the income tax return for the year 1983-84 referred to as Ex.P40 in my affidavit) 65 Ex.P89 are the objections dated 23.02.1938 filed before the IT-80 (referred to as Ex.P41 in my affidavit) CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 21 66 Ex.P90 is the letter dated 06.03.1980 written by Sh. H.S. Paintal referred to as Ex.P42 in my affidavit) Ex.P91 is the statement of taxable income (referred to as Ex.P43 in my affidavit) 67 Ex.P92 is the original counter foil of challan for the period 1981 (referred to as Ex.P44 in my affidavit) 68 Ex.P93 is the Income tax return for the year 1981-82 (referred to as Ex.P45 in my affidavit) 69 Ex.P94 is the copy of Ex.P93.
70 Ex.P95 is the original counter foil in respect of deposit of tax (referred to as Ex.P47 in my affidavit) 71 Ex.P96 are the details / calculations of form no.28 (referred to as Ex.P48 in my affidavit) 72 Ex.P97 is the additional challan for the period 1982-83 (referred to as Ex.P49 in my affidavit) 73 Ex.P98 is the correct photocopy of the refund form (referred to as Ex.P50 in my affidavit) 74 Ex.P99 is the original counter foil in respect deposit of income tax for the period of 1984-85 (referred to as Ex.P51 in my affidavit) 75 Ex.P100 is the ITR for the period 1985-86 (referred to as Ex.P52 in my affidavit) 76 Ex.P101 is the ITR for the period 1986-87 (referred to as Ex.P53 in my affidavit).
77 Ex.P102 is the copy of the ITR for the period 1987-88 (referred to as Ex.P54 in my affidavit) 78 Ex.P103 is the ITR for the period 1988-89 (referred to as Ex.P55 in my affidavit) 79 Ex.P104 is the original counter foil for deposit of income tax (referred to as Ex.P56 in my affidavit) 80 Ex.P105 is the assessment order for the period 1988-89 (referred to as Ex.P57 in my affidavit) 81 Ex.P106 is the demand notice (referred to as Ex.P58 in my affidavit) CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 22 82 Ex.P107 is the original counter foil for the period of tax (referred to as Ex.P59 in my affidavit) 83 Ex.P108 is the letter dated 08.12.1977 (referred to as Ex.P28 in my affidavit) 84 Ex.P109 is the objections dated 10.11.1980 (referred to as Ex.P32 in my affidavit) 85 Ex.P110 is the original lease agreement dated 02.09.1988 (referred to as Ex.P180 in my affidavit) 86 Ex.P111 is the letter dated nil of Mrs. Trevor Page (referred to as Ex.P210 in my affidavit) 87 Ex.P112 is the photocopy of NSC certificate (referred to as Ex.P169 in my affidavit) 88 Ex.P113 is the original letter dated 12.12.1986 of LIC (referred to as Ex.P134 in my affidavit). 89 Ex.PW114 is the original counterfoil relating to deposit of cash (referred to as Ex.P135 in my affidavit) 90 Ex.PW115 is the original receipt issued by LIC (referred to as Ex.P136 in my affidavit) 91 Ex.PW116 is the original receipt issued by. LIC (referred to as Ex.P137 in my affidavit) 92 Ex.PW117 is the letter dated 22.01.1988 (referred to as Ex.P165 in my affidavit) 93 Ex.PW118 is the original memo dated 03.06.1986 issued by HSIDC (referred to as Ex.P166 in my affidavit). 94 Ex.PW119 is the original letter dated 15.09.1987 (referred to as Ex.P167 in my affidavit). 95 Ex PW120 1s the legal notice dated 02.11.1989 on behalf of defendant no.4 (referred to as Ex.P204 in my affidavit) 96 Ex.PW121 is the original HSIDC Water Connection sanction letter dated 3.11.89 (referred to as Ex.P168 in my affidavit) 97 Ex.PW122 is the original Deposit Receipt, Syndicate Bank (Rs.50,000 Draft) from defendant 1 dated 23.11.87 (referred to as Ex.P163 in my affidavit) CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 23 98 Ex.PW123 is the original Rent receipt of Traver Page in the name of Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal dated 3.12.88 (referred to as Ex.P182 in my affidavit) 99 Ex.PW124 is the original Rent receipt of Traver Page in the name of Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal dated 6.11.89 (referred to as Ex.P183 in my affidavit) 100 Ex.PW125 is the original Rent receipt of Traver Page in the name of Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal dated 3.2.89. (referred to as Ex.P184 in my affidavit) 101 Ex. PW 126 is original DD Receipt of Bank of America, Canada dated 3.9.86 (referred to as Ex.P126 in my affidavit) 102 Ex.PW127 is carbon copy of the Letter of Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal dated 3.9.89 (referred to as Ex.P189 in my affidavit) 103 Ex.PW128 is the carbon copy of Letter of Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal dated 12.5.96 to the Deputy Director DDA(referred to as Ex.P197 in my affidavit) 104 Ex.PW129 is the copy of Letter of RBI dated 4.2.85 addressed to the Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal (referred to as Ex.P 77 in my affidavit) 105 Ex.PW130 is the Original Letter of Hemant Sharma, Deputy Finance Manager, Munjal Showa Ltd. written to Mrs. Jasleen dated 11.11.89(referred to as Ex.P216 in my affidavit) 106 Ex.PW131 is the original hand written statement given by Mr. Hemant Sharma dated nil (referred to as Ex.P217 in my affidavit) 107 Ex.PW132 is the original handwritten receipt of Hemant Sharma dated 4.2.89 (referred to as Ex.P218 in my affidavit) 108 Ex.PW133 is Admission form to Hon'ble. Sec. Govt.
Servant Coop. Society, Vasant Vihar, signed by Mrs. Avtar Kaur Paintal dated 17.4.69 (referred to as Ex.P2 in my affidavit) 109 Ex.PW 134 is the Letter granting permission from DDA CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 24 Dated 20.5.69 (referred to as Ex.P4 in my affidavit) 110 Ex.PW135 is the Share Certificate No.2120, Share No.1791 of Govt. Servants Coop. House Building Society Ltd. Dated 16.6.69 (referred to as Ex.P7 in my affidavit) 111 Ex.PW136 is the Letter from H.S.Paintal to Society dated 11.8.69 (referred to as Ex.P8 in my affidavit) 112 Ex.PW137 is the Letter from H.S.Paintal to Society dated 12.4.76 (referred to as Ex.P12 in my affidavit) 113 Ex.PW138 is the Valuation report (Form O-1) by LS.
Lamba dated 12.6.74 (referred to as Ex.P9 in my affidavit) 114 Ex.PW139 is the Annexure II, Form(O-1) by LS.Lamba dated 12.6.74(referred to as Ex.P10 in my affidavit) 115 Ex.PW140 is the Annexure II, Form(O-1) by L.S.Lamba dated 12.6.74 (referred:to as Ex.P11 in my affidavit) 116 Ex.PW141 is the Certificate Dated 13.2.85 issued by Asst. Controller, State Duty, New Delhi to Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal (referred to as Ex.P68 in my affidavit) 117 Ex.PW142 is the Assessment Order of state Duty Officer dated 24.1.85(referred to as Ex.P69 in my affidavit) 118 Ex.PW143 is the Indemnity Bond by Shri. H.S.Paintal dated 30.8.84(referred to as Ex.P75 in my affidavit) 119 Ex.PW144 is the Letter from H.S.Paintal to Income Tax Officer, Mayur Bhavan dated 6.3.80(referred to as Ex.P60 in my affidavit) 120 Ex.PW145 is the Cross-objection of H.S.Paintal dated 23.2.78 filed in Income Tax Appeal No. 4357/1977-78 (referred to as Ex.P61 in my affidavit) 121 Ex.PW 146 is the Letter of H.S.Paintal to Society dated 24.8.84 (referred to as Ex.P72 in my affidavit) 123 Ex.PW147 is the Letter of B.P-Mittal dated 30.8.84(referred to as Ex.P78 in my affidavit) 124 Ex.PW 148 is the Letter from DDA to the Society dated 27.9.84 (referred to as Ex.P 73 in my affidavit) CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 25 125 Ex.PW149 is the extract of minutes of the meeting the Managing Committee of the Society dated 11.10.84(referred to as Ex.P79 in my affidavit) Ex.PW150 is the Letter of R.P.Paintal to the Society dated 17.10.84 (referred to as Ex.P82 in my affidavit) 126 Ex.PW151 is the Form of Register of Members of R.P.Paintal of the Society dated 15.10.84 (referred to as Ex.P81 in my affidavit) 127 Ex.PW152 is the Admission Form of R.P.S.Paintal dated 15.10.84 (referred to as Ex.P83 in my affidavit) 128 Ex.PW153 is the Letter of H.S.Paintal to the Society dated 15.10.84 received by the Society on 17.10.84 (referred to as Ex.P80 in my affidavit) 129 Ex.PW 154 is the Handwritten note of H.S.Paintal dated nil (referred to as Ex.P185 in my affidavit) 130 Ex.PW156 is the note dated 28.8.89, from the Society File (referred to as Ex.P76 in my affidavit) 131 Ex.PW157 is the Letter of H.S.Paintal to DESU dated 25.2.86 (referred to as Ex.P86 in my affidavit) 132 Ex.PW158 is the Application made to DESU by H.S.Paintal and A. Kaur dated nil (referred to as Ex.P87 in my affidavit) 133 Ex.PW159 is the Application made to DESU by H.S.Paintal and A. Kaur dated nil (referred to as Ex.P88 in my affidavit) 134 Ex.PW160 is the DESU Bill in the names of H.S.Paintal and A.Kaur dated 8.6.84(referred to as Ex.P27 in my affidavit) 135 Ex.PW161 is the Rent Receipt by Munjal Showa Ltd.
dated 4.2.89(referred to as Ex.P211 in my affidavit) 136 Ex.PW162 is the Rent Receipt by Munjal Showa Ltd.
dated 2.5.89(referred to as Ex.P212 in my affidavit) 137 Ex.PW164 is the Letter of Def.2 to DDA dated 8.9.89 (referred to as Ex.P92 in my affidavit) 138 Ex.PW165 is the Letter of D-3 &4 dated 30.1.90 CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 26 (referred to as Ex.P187 in my affidavit) 139 Ex.PW166 is the Letter of D-3 to DDA dated 9.2.90 (referred to as Ex.P198 in my affidavit) 140 Ex.PW167 is the Letter of R.P.Paintal to DDA dated 14.2.90 (referred to as Ex.P93 in my affidavit) 141 Ex.PW168 is the Letter of D-3 To DDA dated 7.7.92(referred to as Ex.P200 in my affidavit) 142 Ex.PW169 is the Letter of D-3 to DDA dated 18.5.93 (referred to as Ex.P203 in my affidavit) 143 Ex.PW170 is the Letter of D-2 To Society dated 8.3.89(referred to as Ex.P94 in my affidavit) 144 Ex.PW171 is the Letter of Society to D-2 dated 17.3.89 (referred to as Ex.P95 in my affidavit) 145 Ex.PW172 is the Letter of D-2 to DDA dated 20.4.89(referred to as Ex.P96 in my affidavit) 146 Ex.PW173 is the Letter of D-2 To DDA dated 22.4.89(referred to as Ex.P97 in my affidavit) 147 Ex.PW174 is the Letter of D-2 To DDA dated 4.5.89(referred to as Ex.P98 in my affidavit) 148 Ex.PW175 is the Affidavit of D-2 dated 12.4.89(referred to as Ex.P99 in my affidavit) 149 Ex.PW176 is the Affidavit of D-2 dated 12.4.89(referred to as Ex.P100 in my affidavit) 150 Ex.PW177 is the Indemnity Bond of D-2 dated 12.4.89(referred to as Ex. P 101 in my affidavit) 151 Ex.PW178 is the Affidavit of D-2 dated 22.8.89(referred to as Ex.P110 in my affidavit) 152 Ex.PW179 is the letter of D-1 to the society dated 20.4.89(referred to as Ex.P102 in my affidavit) 153 Ex.PW180 is the letter of D-1 (special note) dated March 1989(referred to as Ex. P 103 in my affidavit) 154 Ex. PW181 is the Affidavit of D-1 dated 12.4.89(referred to as Ex.P104 in my affidavit) 155 Ex.PW182 is the Affidavit of D-1 dated 12.4.89(referred CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 27 to as Ex.P105 in my affidavit) 156 Ex.PW183 is the Indemnity Bond of D-1 dated 12.4.89(referred to as Ex.P 106 in my affidavit) 157 Ex.PW184 is the Indemnity Bond of D-1 dated 12.4.89(referred to as Ex.P 107 in my affidavit) 158 Ex.PW185 is the letter of D-1dated 25.1.90 (referred to as Ex.P108 in my affidavit) 159 Ex.PW186 is the affidavit of D-1 dated 12.5.72(referred to as Ex.P109 in my affidavit) 160 Ex.PW187 is the Telex from RPS Paintal to Munyal Showa Ltd. dated 24.7.89 (referred to as Ex.P 111 in my affidavit) 161 Ex.PW188 is the letter of RPS Paintal to DDA dated 12.2.90 (referred to as Ex.P 199 in my affidavit) 162 Ex.PW188A is the letter of RPS Paintal to DDA dated 17.8.03 (referred to as Ex.P 201 in my affidavit) 163 Ex.PW188B is the letter of RPS Paintal to DDA dated 17.8.2003 (referred to as Ex.P 202 in my affidavit) 164 Ex.PW189 is the letter of A. Kaur to RPS Paintal dated 12.6.77(referred to as Ex.P140 in my affidavit) 165 Ex.PW190 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 4.8.77 (referred to as Ex.P141 in my affidavit) 166 Ex.PW191 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 10.8.77 (referred to as Ex.P142 in my affidavit) 167 Ex.PW192 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 20.8.77(referred to as Ex.P143 in my affidavit) 168 Ex.PW193 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 11.2.81(referred to as Ex.P144 in my affidavit) 169 Ex.PW194 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 18.10.84 (referred to as Ex.P145 in my affidavit) 170 Ex.PW195 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 13.11.84(referred to as Ex.P146 in my affidavit) 171 Ex.PW196 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 4.2.85(referred to as Ex.P147 in my affidavit) CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 28 172 Ex.PW197 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 31.12.85(referred to as Ex.P148 in my affidavit) 173 Ex.PW198 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 18.12.86(referred to as Ex.P149 in my affidavit) 174 Ex.PW199 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 30.12.86(referred to as Ex.P150 in my affidavit) 175 Ex.PW200 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 12.6.77(referred to as Ex.P151 in my affidavit) 176 Ex.PW201 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 4.8.77(referred to as Ex.P152 in my affidavit) 177 Ex.PW202 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 10.8.77(referred to as Ex.P153 in my affidavit) 178 Ex.PW203 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 20.8.77(referred to as Ex.P154 in my affidavit) 179 Ex.PW204 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 11.2.81(referred to as Ex.P155 in my affidavit) 180 Ex.PW205 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 18.10.84(referred to as Ex.P156 in my affidavit) 181 Ex.PW206 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 13.11.84(referred to as Ex.P157 in my affidavit) 182 Ex.PW207 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 4.2.85 (referred to as Ex.P158 in my affidavit) 183 Ex.PW208 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 31.12.85(referred to as Ex.P159 in my affidavit) 184 Ex.PW209 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 18.12.86(referred to as Ex.P160 in my affidavit) 185 Ex.PW210 is the Letter of HS Paintal to RPS Paintal dated 30.12.86(referred to as Ex.P161 in my affidavit) 186 Ex.PW211 is the original deposit slips of HS Paintal and RPS Paintal dated 8.2.89, 4.4.89, 4.2.89 (referred to as Ex.P 219 in my affidavit) 187 Ex.PW212 is the handwritten note of borrowings by HS Paintal till 8.8.88 dated 8.8.88(referred to as Ex.P162 in my affidavit) CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 29 188 Ex.PW213 is the Pass book of bank of Baroda (BOB) of A Kaur dated nil (referred to as Ex.P 206 in my affidavit) 189 Ex.PW214 is the Pass book of Bank of Baroda (BOB) of RPS Paintal of A/c no. 308 dated nil (referred to as Ex.P 207 in my affidavit) 190 Ex.PW215 is the Pass book of Bank of Baroda (BOB) of RPS Paintal dated nil (referred to as Ex.P 208 in my affidavit) 191 Ex.PW216 is the Pass book of RPS Paintal (New Bank of India) dated nil (referred to as Ex.P 209 in my affidavit) 192 Ex.PW217 is the letter from Munjal Showa Ltd. To Defendant -4 dated 11.11.89(referred to as Ex.P 213 in my affidavit) 193 Ex.PW218 is the rent receipt of Munjal Showa Ltd. dated 4.2.89(referred to as Ex.P 214 in my affidavit) 194 Ex.PW219 is the rent receipt of Munjal Showa Ltd. dated 2.5.89 (referred to as Ex.P 215 in my affidavit) 195 Ex.PW221 is the receipt of money received towards maruti van dated 7.4.84 (referred to as Ex. P 179 in my affidavit).
35. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined Sh.
Deepak Jain/ Handwriting Expert and Finger Print Expert as PW2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/A and relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Particulars Exhibits
1. The detail of reasons and Ex.PW2/1 observation on the basis of which PW2/Sh. Deepak Jain has formed his opinion mentioned in the report dated 12.02.2018, which is correct and signed by PW2/Sh. Deepak Jain CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 30
2. 67 photographs pasted on 7 chart Ex. PW2/2 (Colly) papers are collectively
36. Defendant no. 1/Sh. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal in support of his case examined himself as D1W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D1W1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Particulars Exhibits
1 Letter dated 12.03.1991 addressed Mark D
to Co-operative Societies Cell
(DDA)
2 Letter dated 11.03.1996 Mark E
3 Letter of Syndicate Bank dated Ex. DW1/3
07.03.1990 acknowledging deposit
of above draft in account no. 13730
of S. Harbans Singh Paintal
4 Receipt of payment Ex. DW1/4
5 Hand written note of Late Sh. Mark G
Harbans Singh Paintal
37. Defendant no. 1 in support of his case examined Sh.
P.K. Sharma as D1W2 and submitted that he had not brought the record as the summoned record was not traceable as the transactions pertained to 26 years old case.
38. Defendant no. 1 in support of his case examined Sh.
Nanda Ballabh as D1W3 and relied upon the following documents:-
CS DJ No. 9799/16Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 31 S.No. Particulars Exhibits 1 Original copy of summoned letter Ex. D1W3/1 dated 12.03.1991 2 Summoned letter dated Ex. D1W3/2 17.02.1993 3 Summoned letter dated Ex. D1W3/3 11.03.1996
39. Defendant no. 1 in support of his case examined Sh.
AM Kapoor as D1W4 and relied upon the document i.e. Letter dated 07.03.1990 written by the Bank Manager to defendant no. 1 acknowledging receipt of letter of defendant no. 1 and crediting Rs. 50,000/- to account number 13730 dated 26.11.1987 which is Ex. D1W4/1.
40. Defendant no. 1 in support of his case examined Sh.
Pramod Kumar Sharma as DW1/5 who submitted that he was called upon to produce original certified copies of letter dated 08.04.1989 written by plaintiff to New Bank of India (currently Punjab National Bank) and that the record was not available with the Bank as records older than 10 years are routinely destroyed by the Bank and that he cannot say if summary of the number of documents routinely destroyed was available with the Bank or not.
41. Defendant no. 1 in support of his case examined Sh.
Gyanender as DW1/6 who submitted that he was called upon to produce original certified copy of letter dated 07.03.1990 written by defendant no. 1 crediting Rs. 50,000/- to account no. 13730 on 26.11.1987 and that the record was not available CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 32 with the Bank as records older than 10 years are routinely destroyed by the Bank and that he cannot say if summary of the number of documents routinely destroyed was available with the Bank or not. The letter vide Ref. NO. 9031/VV/CC/DHC dated 10.11.2014 written to Joint Registrar, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stating that this letter is not available is Ex. DW1/6.
42. Defendant no. 2/ Sh. Gojinder Pal Singh Pal Singh in support of his case has examined himself as D2W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D2/W-1/X and relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Particulars Exhibits
1 Sub lease deed dated 20.05.1969 Ex. D2/W1-1
executed EX-D2/W1-1 in favor
of Shri H.S. Paintal and Smt. Avtar
Paintal (already Exhibited as P-
78A)
2 Letter dated 15.07.1991 (it is Ex. D2
observed that EX-D2 there is
no mark of admission and
denial on the document) Already
Exhibited
3 Original letter dated 01.10.1991 EXD3
sent by DDA to the Plaintiff
(Admitted by the Plaintiff during
the admission and denial).
Already Exhibited
CS DJ No. 9799/16
Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 33 4 Will dated 17.03.1977 EX-P1 5 Unit trust Certificate No.48611750029, 48711880005 and 48711500286. Objected by EX-D2/W1/2, by the counsel of the Plaintiff EX-D2/W1/3, on the ground of mode of proof, EX-D2/W1/4 competency of the witness to prove respectively.
the said document and its
admissibility. The documents
mentioned in present para and
such cannot be Exhibited and be
DeExhibited.
6 Copy of the Will dated 19.10.1987. EX-P2 Already Exhibited 7 Original letter dated 14.08.1987 EX-D1 written by Plaintiff to his father 8 Lease agreement dated 30.07.1989 Ex. D2/W1/5 between D-2 and Munjal Showa.
Objected by the Counsel of the Plaintiff on the ground of Mode of proof, competency of the witness to prove the said document and its admissibility 9 Invoice dated 18.09.1986 from the Ex. D2/W1/6 plaintiff for Arminius Revolver (OSR). Objected by the Counsel of the Plaintiff on the ground CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 34 of mode of proof, competency of the witness to prove the said document and its admissibility.
Counsel for the plaintiff further objected that the original of the document cannot be produced at this stage as the same was not filed on record.
10 Certificate from joint chief controller of EX-D7 Imports and exports dated 17.02.1986 (OSR) admitted by the Plaintiff during admission and denial.
11 Authority regarding possession of EX-D6 revolver by defense officers (OSR) admitted by the Plaintiff during admission and denial.
12 Receipt in original issued by the EX-D4 New Bank of India. Admitted by the Plaintiff during admission and denial.
13 Receipt towards the payment for EX-D2/W1/7
the purchase of Maruti Van
registration No. DID 3545
executed by Shri H.S Paintal dated
08.09.1986. Objected by the
counsel of the Plaintiff on the
CS DJ No. 9799/16
Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 35 ground of mode of proof, competency of the witness to prove the said document and its admissibility.
14 Certificate of Maruti Van EX-D2/W1/8 registration No. DID 3545 Objected by the counsel of the Plaintiff on the ground of mode of proof, competency of the witness to prove the said document and its admissibility. Counsel for the Plaintiff further objected that the photocopy of the said document cannot be Exhibited.
Submission by the Counsel for the Defendant No.2 that previously the original of this document was filed and was further withdrawn on later stage with the permission of the Court.
15 Receipt of Rs 62,500/issued by Ex. D5 Plaintiff as the price of Maruti van registration No. DID 3545 dated 07.04.1989.
16 Letter forwarded by DDA in Mark A original dated 02.08.1991 Objected by the counsel of the CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 36 Plaintiff on the ground of mode of proof, competency of the witness to prove the said document.
43. Defendant no. 2 in support of his case has examined Sh. Avinesh Kumar Raghav/ Official from Bank of Baroda as D2W2 who submitted that old records of year 1986 are not available with the Branch as the same appears to have been destroyed in terms of Bank's existing guidelines and policies. The authority letter dated 03.10.2017 is Ex. D2W-2/1 and the letter dated 03.10.2017 issued by the Senior Branch Manager is Ex. D2W-2/2.
44. Defendant no. 2 in support of his case has examined Sh.
Vijay/ Official from State Bank of India as D2W3 who submitted that old records of year 1989 are not available with the Branch as the same appear to have been destroyed in terms of Bank's existing guidelines and policies. The authority letter is Ex. D2W-3/1.
45. Defendant no. 2 in support of his case has examined Sh.
Jatin Singh/ Official from Punjab National Bank as D2W-4 who submitted that old records of year 1989 are not available with the Branch. The authority letter dated 03.10.2017 is Ex. D2W-4/1 and ID Proof is Ex. D2W-4/2.
46. Defendant no. 2 in support of his case has examined Sh.
U.S. Negi/ official from DDA as D2W2 and proved the property documents pertaining to property no. C7/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, the records of which shows that half of CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 37 above said property was mutated in favour of Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal vide letter dated 27.09.1984 File No. F.GS(C-7)/78/CS/DDA which is exhibited as Ex. D2W2/1 (OSR). That the above said mutation done in favour of Mr. R.P.S. Paintal on the basis of Affidavit of Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal dated 29.08.1984 which is exhibited as Ex. D2W-2/2 (OSR). Will dated 17.03.1977 of Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal is exhibited as Ex. D2W-2/3 which is already Exhibited as Ex P1. NOC dated 26.08.1984 in favour of Sh. R.P.S. Paintal by legal heir of Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal which is exhibited as Ex. D2W-2/4(OSR). The application of Mutation dated 30.08.1948 of Half of Property in favour of Sh. R.P.S. Paintal was forwarded by Sh. B.P. Mittal, Secretary of CSBS which is exhibited as Ex. D2W-2/5(OSR).
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
47. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record of the case and also the written submissions filed by all the parties on record.
48. The first issue framed in this case is regarding the Will of Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal dated 17.03.1977. The Will is executed by mother of the parties namely Smt. Avtar Paintal in favour of plaintiff.
Will of Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal dated 17.03.1977
49. From the arguments of the parties there are two main issues which need to be determined qua this Will, firstly, whether the Will is proved or not and secondly, what has CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 38 been transferred by way of this Will in favour of plaintiff. A perusal of the Will would show that it is mentioned by the testatrix that she is owner of half portion of the suit property bearing no. C7/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. However in the later paragraph of the Will, she has clearly mentioned that by way of this Will, she is bequeathing first floor and Barsati as well as servant quarter to her youngest son, Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal/ plaintiff.
50. Perusal of the Will of the mother of the parties namely Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal dated 17.03.1977 would show that in her Will, she has specifically mentioned that she is the owner of half proportion of the suit property along with her husband. It is further mentioned that as per distribution between her and her husband, she is owner of entire first floor along with its barsati, with its two roofs and second floor servant quarter. It is further mentioned by her in her Will that she is giving first floor and barsati as well as servant quarter to the plaintiff as her portion was built by her husband from her own money. It is pertinent to quote here the relevant portion of the Will which are as follows :-
"I, Sardarni Avtar Kaur Paintal, Wife of S. Harbans Singh Paintal, aged about 59 years, resident of House no. C7/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, hereby declare that at present I am in the deposing state of mind and I am making this Will without any pressure or threat and with my own free Will.
The world is mortal and life is uncertain and with a view to safeguard that there should arise no dispute regarding my estate after my death I CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 39 have felt the necessity of executing this Will. I solely own House no. C-7/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, in half proportion with my husband and our mutual distribution is that the entire first floor along with its Barsati with its two roofs and the second floor Servant Quarter belong to me as marked on the house sketch attached. I am at present drawing rent independently from our tenants, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India.
I have three major sons, named Gulshanvir Singh Paintal, Gojinder Pal Singh Pal Singh Paintal end Ravinder Pal Sjingh Paintal, who are all married and alive. The two major daughters, named Manjit Kar md Jasleen Kaur are aliv and married and living with their own families. At present, I am living with my husband, who is looking after me very well. All my five children are also well settled and have great affection for me. I, with my own sweet will give my portion of the above House, C-7/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (first floor and Barsati as well as Servant Quarter) to my youngest son, Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal as my portion was built by my husband from my own money, which has been proved in the Income-Tax Department, New Delhi. It is being taxed in two equal portions and similar is the case of the House-Tax levy. I have no other immovable property except the Unit Trust Investments for which I hold the certificates to be cashed,if needed, by the the nominees allotted by me. Regarding my Bank Accounts in the Bank of Baroda, Vasant Vihar and other banks end H.U.F. money portion, this could be drawn by my husband and distributed equally among my other four children, who are alive. All my jewellery, clothes and other movable property will be distributed by my husband or his successors in four equal shares to my children. In case, Ravinder Pal Singh dies earlier, my portion CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 40 of the house should go to my second son, Major Gajinder Pal Singh Paintal, now at Baroda. I further will that Major Gajinder Pal Singh Paintal will look after the entire property of mine ad collect the rent and other benefits on behlaf of Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal, the youngest son."
This is my last Will and all the witnesses below have signed in my presence. The Will is executed on 17.03.1977
51. This Will is registered and at the time of registration, her husband/ Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal has also signed on this Will as a witness. Further Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal has also mentioned about this Will of his wife in his own Will as well. Hence his intention had always been to give effect to the Will of his wife. Further in the Will of Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal, it is specifically mentioned that he has divided the shares as per the wish of his wife.
52. Perusal of the above extract from the Will of the mother would show that she was owner of first floor along with its barsati, with its two roofs and second floor servant quarter. But she has bequeathed only first floor with barsati and servant quarter to her youngest son. The 'two roofs' have specifically not been mentioned in the share which she had given to plaintiff. Further it is mentioned that she is giving 'barsati' and not 'barsati floor'. Further she does not mention that she is giving 'her entire share' to the plaintiff, she has specifically mentioned what is being bequeathed to the plaintiff. Hence it cannot be presumed that her intention was to bequeath her entire share to the CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 41 plaintiff. Hence it cannot be presumed that she had bequeathed roof over the first floor also on which now second floor is constructed. She had only given barsati, servant quarter and first floor to the plaintiff. Barsati is a temporary structure on any building on any floor where usually goods are kept to save them from rain, as is explained by the Counsel for plaintiff. Hence beside first floor, she had only given this temporary structure and servant quarter of second floor to the plaintiff.
53. It is the argument of Counsel for plaintiff that by way of this Will, her mother has assigned her entire undivided half portion in the suit property. However the said argument is not acceptable. Mother has clearly mentioned in the Will that she is owner of half portion in the above said house and thereafter she mentions the portion i.e. first floor, barsati and servant quarter which she is bequeathing to plaintiff. Hence it is only the specifically named portion which has been given to the plaintiff by way of this Will.
54. Defendants have submitted that since no witnesses to the Will have been examined, hence the Will is not proved. However I do not agree with the submissions made. A Will is required to be proved only in those cases where it is disputed. The perusal of the written statement of the defendant would show that they do not deny the execution of this Will by their mother, rather stand taken is that she was not the owner of this property as the property was purchased by their father in the name of the mother. Hence CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 42 it is benami property of the father. However I do not agree with the submissions so made by the defendant no. 1. Even if the consideration might have flowed from the account of the father, yet his intention might have been to include the name of his wife in the said Sale Deed as he wanted to gift her the said portion. There is nothing on record to infer that the intention of father, to purchase this property in the name of his wife, was only limited to include the name of his wife for tax purposes and hence it is benami property of the father. Hence it cannot be called benami property.
55. Further the said Sub-lease dated 20.05.1969 itself is not challenged, by the defendants. Since the Lease Deed itself is not challenged which stands in the name of father and mother of the parties, the said Lease Deed itself is not in issue in the present case at all, as no declaration regarding the same has been sought from this Court. Hence the Lease Deed stands as it is, as it is not challenged by any of the defendants or by the plaintiffs. Further there is presumption in Law that all the documents which are registered are validly executed. It is pertinent to quote here the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Prem Singh and Others Vs. Birbal & Others (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 353. The relevant excerpt is as follows:-
" 27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 43 instant case, respondent no. 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption."
56. A party who pleads otherwise is bound to prove the same. Not only the party is bound to lead the evidence on the same but there must be specific pleadings regarding the same and also the declaration must be sought qua the same which is not done by defendants. Hence the Lease Deed dated 20.05.1969 being not challenged stands as it is, according to which both mother and father of the parties were 50 % owners of this property.
57. None of the defendants in their written statements have denied the execution of this Will by the mother. Defendant no. 2 does not deny this Will or its execution in the entire written statement nor does defendant no. 1. It is only mentioned that she could not have made a lawful Will as she was not the owner of the property, hence she had no authority to make Will regarding the same. It is their argument that she was merely joined as co-lessee as benamidar while purchasing the property. However as is already observed above, the Lease Deed is not challenged before undersigned. Hence it cannot be said that property was purchased partially in her name as benamidar. Besides this objection raised in the written statement, there is no other objection raised to this Will by defendant no. 1.
58. It is no where pleaded that mother was not in a fit state of mind to execute the Will, or that witness to Will did not sign the Will, rather its execution is not denied at CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 44 all. There is a vague and general denial in entire WS by defendant no. 1 that the Will was not validly executed. The same is unsupported with any specific pleadings that what is the objection with the Will and why it cannot be called to be validly executed. It is settled Law that whenever a document is challenged thereby pleading coercion, undue influence and fraud, those facts not only need to be specifically pleaded, but also must be specifically proved as well. Whether there has been any undue influence, fraud or coercion is a question of fact to be decided after appreciation of evidence on record. There is no such evidence lead by defendant no. 1. There are only general and vague averments made in the WS. Hence it is deemed admission of the Will of mother, not only its execution but also its contents.
59. Needless to say defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4, who are sisters, have chosen not to contest this case. As the Will of Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal is not denied, hence the fact that plaintiff has not lead any evidence to this Will to prove the same cannot be read against him as the Will itself has not been challenged at all nor its execution has been challenged. Hence Will of mother is proved by way of which she bequeathed first floor, barsati and servant quarter and garage in favour of plaintiff. Will of father Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal dated 19.10.1987.
60. It is pertinent to quote here the relevant portion of CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 45 the Will which are as follows :-
"I, S. Harbans Singh Paintal S/0 Sh. Jagjodh Singh Paintal aged about 71 years R/O House No. C-7/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi hereby declare that at present l am in the deposing state of mind and I am making this Will without any pressure or threat and with my own free will.
The world is mortal and life is uncertain and with a view to safeguard that there should arise no dispute regarding my estate after my death I have felt the necessity of executing this Will.
That I now solely own house No. C-7/7 Vasant Vihar in half proportioit jointly with my youngest son Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal and I am living at present in its two basement rooms.
That I have three major sons, named Gulshanvir Singh Paintal, Gojinder Pal Singh Pal Singh Paintal and Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal, who are all married and alive. The two major daughters, named Manjit Kaur and Jasleen Kaur are alive and married living with their own families. All my children are looking after me very well and are equally affectionate towards me. I with my own sweet will in supersession of my previous Will made before the Registrar Delhi on 7-10-1986 give the ground portion of the house (Ground floor) with car garage, ground servant quarter, to my middle son namely Col. Gojinder Pal Singh Pal Singh Paintal excluding the two basement rooms with bath and kitchen.
The two basement rooms with common kitchen and bath go to my two daughters Mrs Manjit Kaur and Jasleen Kaur in equal shares with an independent entry and porch on the rear side of the house. The two rooms can be utilised by either ,of the daughters with the consent of the other and both basement rooms qo to other sister in case of either the survival of the two sisters and their sons. The brothers have no claim on these two basement rooms.
I have constructed jointly with my youngest son Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal the portion on the second floor to be given to my eldest son Gulshanvir Singh Paintal. He will only acquire the possession and ownership of the second floor if he pays Rs 60,000/- in cash to both the sisters in equal shares. In case he fails to pay Rs 60,000/the CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 46 ownership of this second floor flat comprising of 3- bed rooms, Drawing, Dining, Kitchen, two open porches, the staircase and servant quarter on the second floor, goes to the two sisters. The distribution is subject to the payment of Rs 60,000/- to two sisters in the supervision of my youngest son Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal who owns. this property with me and has consented and signed this distribution as wished by my late wife.
I further will that all my other moveable property, bank accounts, one cooler postal certificates, Raymond shares, HUF, Unit Trust if any, Air Conditioners(2), Frig, Rifles one 22 bore, one 12 bore, one revolver 32 bore, Car (Maruti Van) which has already been paid for by me but proceeds from the sale must be given to my daughters, Scooter, furniture proceeds, crockery, two Almirahs (1 steel and, 1 wooden ,TV, Kitchen utencils and appliances, gas, telephone etc. and all other household items big or small, proceeds from sale must go to my two daughters. The proceeds will be given equally to my two daughters by Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal. The furniture already with Col. Paintal i.e. Sofa set, two beds, the wooden rack, the TV rack and other moveable things and other properties with him are given now to Col. Paintal.
As Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal has acquired the entire first floor willed in his name by my late wife Mrs Avtar Paintal, he gets the first floor servant Quarter and rear side temporary garage and the open Space at the back of the temporary garage.
The portion-wise distribution is marked separately in the enclosed sketch of the house."
61. Will of the father is dated 19.10.1987. Father of the parties namely Late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal has himself mentioned in his original Will placed on record that his wife has executed a Will of first floor, barsati, and garage in favour of plaintiff. Perusal of the Will of the father itself would show that he had complete intention to give effect CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 47 to the Will which was executed by his wife in favour of plaintiff. This Will of father has been relied upon by defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 has not denied this Will. Defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 are not appearing before the Court and have not led any evidence. It is the plaintiff who is challenging the Will of his father. However in the entire pleadings of the plaintiff, he does not deny execution of the Will by the father. It is mentioned by the plaintiff in his plaint that he did not sign the Will as he did not wish to will out his share in the property as per the wishes of the father. But he signed only as a marginal witness. It is also pleaded that even if it is construed as joint Will of father and plaintiff, the plaintiff can revoke his Will any time till the time he is alive. Beside this, there is no objection to the Will mentioned in the plaint.
62. The Will of the father is registered. Plaintiff does not deny that it is registered Will or that he did not go to Sub- Registrar's Office for the purpose of execution of this Will. Rather in his cross-examination, plaintiff admits that this is a Will of his father and he also admits that the has gone to Sub-Registrar's office for the purpose of getting it registered. Further the signatures of witnesses are also on the backside of the Will, thereby proving the fact that the witnesses had gone to the Sub-Registrar's Office as well for the purpose of execution of this Will. The only defence taken by the plaintiff in his plaint is that he signed as a marginal witness. However the said argument does not CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 48 appear convincing at all. He signed as co-testator even before Sub-Registrar also.
63. However this argument that he was only witness to the Will, does not inspire any confidence. He was residing in Canada and he was a Canadian citizen, well-versed in English. It is stated by him in his cross-examination that he is into the business of import of carpets. He was a Canadian citizen doing the business of import there. Hence in view of his position in society, the defence taken that he signed only as witness to the Will of his father, does not inspire any confidence. Further on the one hand, he pleaded that he has obtained no objection certificates for the purpose of mutation from his sisters and has filed numerous documents thereby showing that he has paid property tax for his property as well and doing all sorts of documentations to prove his title to the property. On the other hand, he pleads that his signatures were obtained by father only as a witness. He is not a layman as far as all these property related documents were concerned. In view of the several documents placed by him on record, rather it can be said that he is a very intelligent person, well versed in all sorts of documentation work.
64. As signatures by the plaintiff himself is admitted on the Will and he does not deny anywhere that he had not gone to the Sub-Registrar's Office for the purpose of his execution as it is registered Will, hence mere denial is not sufficient for the Court to discard the entire Will. Plaintiff CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 49 has not denied the execution of the Will by the father. There is not even single suggestion to defendant no. 1 that his father did not execute his Will. It is not mentioned in the pleadings that the Will is forged and fabricated. It is not mentioned in the pleadings thereby imputing any motive to the defendants or any such allegations that they have procured the Will by exerting coercion, undue influence or force on their father, there is no such suggestion to the defendant no. 1 in the entire cross- examination. The only defence raised is, plaintiff signed as marginal witness on which I have already observed that he does not appear to have signed only as a marginal witness. Hence this Will itself is not challenged by plaintiff anywhere in its pleadings thereby specifically mentioning the objections which he raises to the Will. I have no reason whatsoever to discard this Will of father as there is no specific challenge to the Will by the plaintiff. Hence the document which is not denied and is rather impleadly admitted, need not be proved by calling the attesting witness. Hence the Will of the father dated 19.10.1987 is also proved on record.
65. Further the meaning of any Clause in a Will is to be collected from the entire Will and all its parts are to be construed in reference to each other, in view of Section 82 of Indian Succession Act. Further the intention of the testator must be given effect to as far as possible in view of Section 87 of Indian Succession Act. Further as per CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 50 Section 88 of Indian Succession Act where the two clauses in a Will are irreconciliable, the last shall prevail. Hence in the Will of the mother, in the later paragraph where she has specifically mentioned the exact portion to be given to plaintiff shall prevail upon the earlier paragraph where mother has mentioned that she is the owner of half undivided share. Similarly in the Will of the father, the later paragraph where he has specifically mentioned the share given to him by his mother shall prevail.
66. It is pertinent to quote here the recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Vikrant Kapila & Anr. vs Pankaja Panda & Ors.(RFA(OS) 15/2022 and CM No. 34279/2022) passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The relevant excerpt is as follows:-
"27. As per basic settled principles of law, it is the foremost duty of the Court to carefully give a purposeful meaning to the words and logical interpretation to the language of a Will to infer and draw the real intention of the testator. As meaning is sought to be given to the intention of the testator to what he must‟ve meant, when he was alive, after his demise, due importance has to be given to the surrounding circumstances, the background, the status and relations with the family and society of the testator. The purpose must be to derive the real intention of the testator and recognize the dispositive rights of the beneficiaries for reaching a conclusion as far as practically possible. The Court is to look behind the cloak and lift the veil.
28. As far as possible, a Will has to be read as a whole and in case of contradictions, inconsistencies, variations or like, they have to be brought to variance with each other on a level playing field. The intention ought to be inferred from the words and the language used in the Will without reading into them or drawing any preconceived notion and without tinkering with the basic structure of the Will for deciphering their true literal CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 51 meaning. The words in the Will ought to be given a plain, simple and grammatical Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:01:03 meaning as per Dictionary without any if(s) or but(s). We find support in N. Kasturi vs. D. Ponnammal & Ors.31 wherein it has been held as under:
"It is obvious that a court cannot embark on the task of construing a will with a preconceived notion that intestacy must be avoided or vesting must not be postponed. The intention of the testator and the effect of the dispositions contained in the will must be decided by construing the will as a whole and giving the relevant clauses in the will their plain grammatical meaning considered together. In construing a will, it is generally not profitable or useful to refer to the construction of other wills because the construction of each will must necessarily depend upon the terms used by the will considered as a whole, and the result which follows on a fair and reasonable construction of the said words must vary from will to will. Therefore, we must look at the relevant clauses carefully and decide which of the two rival constructions should be accepted."
29. Also, as far as possible all clauses in a Will are to be given equal importance, benefit and uniformity in conjunction with each other and not taken disjointly. The clauses in a Will are like Sailors on a ship sailing in the same direction. Each clause has an individual value like each Sailor has an individual role to play. Thus, a Will has to be harmoniously construed under all circumstances. What is to be kept in mind is that where some clause(s) in the Will are or can be overstepping on each other and as the same cannot be altered or no explanation can be sought from the testator, it should be made sure that such clause(s) do not trample upon each other so as to negate any one of them. In case the clause(s) are inconsistent and a divergent meaning is possible, the order of precedence should be followed, i.e., the more (1961) 3 SCR 955 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:01:03 powerful/meaningful clause(s) is to take precedence over the less meaningful clause(s). When there is a clause bequeathing absolute rights then the same cannot be followed by other clause(s) with restricted rights. An absolute right is an outright recognition which cannot be fettered by CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 52 imposing a condition in the form of a restrictive right."
67. It is the argument of plaintiff that if the argument that this is the joint Will of father and plaintiff is accepted, he may revoke it any time. Further he only signed as a marginal witness. However said argument is not correct. In view of Section 67 of Indian Succession Act, if it is believed that he signed only as a marginal witness, the Will will be invalid only against the plaintiff and he may not inherit anything as per the Will of his father. The Will itself would not be invalid.
68. Now coming to the Will of the father dated 19.10.1987, this Will has been drafted by father thereby giving different floors to the defendants, after taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff has already got first floor as per the Will of his wife. It is argued by Counsel of plaintiff that it is mentioned in the third paragraph of the Will by the father that he is owner of half the portion of the property along with his son plaintiff / Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal. While Counsel for defendant has drawn attention of the Court towards last para of the Will, wherein it is specifically mentioned that plaintiff has got first floor only. However plaintiff has acquired the interest in the property according to the Will of Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal. Hence it is the Will of the mother that has to be looked into in order to assess the portion which plaintiff has got. As discussed above, plaintiff has got first floor, CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 53 barsati and servant quarter only.
69. Now the argument of plaintiff is that, as it was the joint Will of plaintiff and his father, the plaintiff has revoked this Will and he has every right to revoke this Will till the time he is alive. Hence the question is how does this Will binds the plaintiff. It is necessary to discuss here the Doctrine of Estoppal in view of the conduct of the plaintiff.
Estoppel on the Will
70. The Will of the father has been acted upon by the plaintiff and the others. It has come on record by way of admission of plaintiff and documents on record viz. Lease Deed etc. that the respective portions have been let out by parties to tenants as well. The same is also admitted by plaintiff in his cross-examination that he has rented out the first floor and he is receiving rent from the same. As per the Will of his father, he sold the car to one of the brothers as plaintiff was to dispose off movables. Also he obtained and sold all the movables of his father. He wrote letter to the Bank thereby requesting Bank to hand over NSCs/ postal certificates as he was Administrator of the Will.
71. Further perusal of cross-examination of PW1/plaintiff would show that plaintiff has admitted the Will of father. Having admitted the Will in his cross-examination that this is the Will of his father, he is estopped from challenging the Will now. Further perusal of the cross-examination CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 54 would show that he has admitted that he had made application in the bank that as he is Administrator as per the Will of his father, the National Savings Certificate be handed over to him and the same was actually handed over to him but he does not remember where he deposited the receipts of NSCs. Further it is mentioned in the Will of the father that proceeds of all the movable assets such as Maruti Car, utensils, Television etc. are to go to his daughters and since Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal was administered that the work of selling is same, the proceeds were to be given to the two daughters equally by Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal. He further admits that defendant no. 2 had paid him a sum of Rs. 62,500/- in lieu of the Maruti Car of his father. Hence the Will was again acted upon by the plaintiff and he sold the car of the father to defendant no. 2.
72. Further he admitted in his cross-examination that he is in possession of first floor as well as annexe attached with the first floor. He further admitted that defendant no. 2 is in possession of the entire ground floor, defendant no. 1 is in possession of second floor and defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 are in possession of entire basement. Hence he admitted that all the parties are in possession of the respective floors as per the Will of his father. Further he has also admitted that he was a witness to the Will of his father. He also admitted that he signed the Will before Sub-Registrar also, though the defence set up is that he CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 55 signed only as witness to the Will.
73. Further he also admits that there is a tenant on the first floor of the suit property who is paying rent to the plaintiff. Hence it further shows that he acted upon the Will of his father and inducted a tenant on the first floor i.e. share given to him as per the Will of his father.
74. Hence all the above documents and admission by plaintiff would show that he has acted upon the Will of his father after his death. If the plaintiff would have challenged the Will of his father immediately after the death of the father, it would have been altogether different aspect. But he drew the benefits of Will of his father, disposed off all the movable assets of the father, obtained the benefits under the Will and then he decided to challenge the Will.
75. In the above observed view, I am supported by the judgment of Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs.) Vs. Purushotam ( CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6875 OF 2008 with CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6876-6877 OF 2008) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein it was observed :-
"24. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1-3 herein filed suit for eviction of an occupant in which he claimed that the property had been bequeathed to him by Hari Ram. According to the defendants the plaintiff having accepted the Will of Hariram and having taken benefit of the same, cannot turn around and urge that the Will is not valid and that the entire property is a joint family property. The plaintiff and defendant nos. 1-3 by accepting the bequest under the Will elected to accept the will. It is trite law that a party CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 56 cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. This principle is based on the principle of doctrine of election. In respect of Wills, this doctrine has been held to mean that a person who takes benefit of a portion of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will........
25. The doctrine of election is a facet of law of estoppel. A party cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. Any party which takes advantage of any instrument must accept all that is mentioned in the said document. It would be apposite to refer to the treatise 'Equity-A course of lectures' by F.W. Maitland, Cambridge University, 1947, wherein the learned author succinctly described principle of election in the following terms:-
"The doctrine of Election may be thus stated: That he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will or other instrument must adopt the whole contents of that instrument, must conform to all its provisions and renounce all rights that are inconsistent with it....'' Similarly, it was observed in the judgment titled as Karam Kapahi & Ors. Vs. M/S Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Another (CIVIL APPEAL NO.3048 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9080/2009) with CIVIL APPEAL NO.3049 OF 2010(Arising out of SLP(C) No.9091/2009) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:-
"64. The principle of Election has been very felicitously expressed in the treatise `Equity - A course of lectures' by F.W. Maitland, Cambridge University, 1947. The learned author has explained the principle thus:
"The doctrine of Election may be thus stated: That he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will or other instrument must adopt the whole contents of that instrument, must conform to all its provisions and renounce all rights that are CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 57 inconsistent with it....."
66. This principle has also been explained by this Court in Nagubai Ammal and Ors. Vs. B. Shama Rao and Ors.- AIR 1956 SC 593. Speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court, Justice Venkatarama Ayyar stated in para 23 at page 602 of the report:
"The doctrine of election is not however confined to instruments. A person cannot say at time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction."
76. Needless to say, as I have already observed above, he has not challenged execution of the Will, he admitted that he signed the Will himself at the instance of his father and was present at Sub-Registrar's Office as well, which itself is admission on the part of plaintiff that the father has executed the Will. His only defence is that he is owner of the 50% of the property as per the Will of his mother and second floor also belongs to him and that he signed on the Will as a marginal witness. However as discussed above, the arguments that he signed only as a marginal witness does not inspire any confidence. Further he never inherited the entire share of his mother by way of the Will of his mother. He inherited only first floor along with barsati and servant quarter. Further thereafter as per the Will of the father, he was given first floor, along with first floor servant quarter, rear side temporary garage and open space at the back of the temporary garage in lieu of the barsati CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 58 and second floor servant quarter which was given to him. Further even this distribution was acted upon by the plaintiff as well. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the entire second floor is with his brother/ defendant no. 1, hence he acted upon this aspect of the Will as well. Further the Will of the father was acted upon by all the parties during the lifetime of the father as well. This Will was more of a family arrangement between the parties which was done by the father during his own lifetime, thereby giving different portions to his children as per his Will. Further signature of the plaintiff on this Will would show that he has conceded for such family settlement. Going by the contents of the Will, it is a family arrangement between family members which was signed by the plaintiff as well and has been acted upon by all the parties. Needless to say, it is the Will of the father as well which has been acted upon by all the parties during his lifetime.
77. Further if the intention of the plaintiff was not to go by Will of his father, it is not explained by him that why he did not knock the door of the Court till the time his father was alive. Father of the parties died in 1989, thereafter he obtained benefits on the basis of the Will and thereafter he decided to challenge the Will of his father. CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND FLOOR
78. This Will dated 19.101987 is made by the father considering this fact that since plaintiff has already got a CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 59 floor by the Will of his mother, hence he did not intend to give him anything further. Hence he has given various portions in the property as per his wishes to his other children except plaintiff who already had acquired a right therein on the first floor. Except the portion which has gone to the share of plaintiff as per the Will of mother, Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal had assigned other floors as per his own wish. There is no problem in this Will and the Will of Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal can be given effect to as far as the basement and ground floor is concerned. Needless to say, the first floor has already fallen to the share of the plaintiff as per the Will of the mother. The question that remains is whether in the second floor, the plaintiff has acquired any rights because it is mentioned in the Will of the father dated 19.10.1987 that it was constructed jointly out of the funds of father and plaintiff. It is pleaded by plaintiff that the entire second floor was constructed by father out of earning of the plaintiff but the said is a bare averment unsupported with any document on record.
79. Now coming to the Will dated 19.10.1987 of Sh.
Harbans Singh Paintal/ father, it is mentioned that he has constructed second floor jointly with plaintiff to be given to his eldest son/ Sh. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal, who is to acquire rights therein only on payment of Rs. 60,000/- to the sisters. It is further mentioned that he owns this property with plaintiff and has consented and signed this distribution as per the wishes of the late mother of the CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 60 parties. Further it is mentioned that as Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal has got first floor as per the Will of his mother, he is to get first floor servant quarter and rear side temporary garage and open space at the back of temporary garage.
80. It is mentioned in the Will that the second floor is jointly constructed by Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal/ father and plaintiff. However it is specifically pleaded and argued by Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2 that it is defendant no. 1/ Sh. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal who has constructed this portion and he was given this portion subject to the payment of Rs. 60,000/- to the sisters. It is submitted that he had paid consideration for this floor to his father, partly by way of bank transfer of Rs. 50,000/- and partly in cash of Rs. 10,000/-. It is also submitted that PW1 has already admitted in his cross-examination that this floor was constructed by defendant no. 2.
81. It is pertinent to quote here the relevant excerpt from the cross-examination of PW1 dated 22.12.2012 wherein the following admissions were made by PW1 which are as follows :-
"............. The construction of basement, ground, first and half of second floor (barsati) was undertaken by my father. ............ The construction of the entire second floor was undertaken in 1986-87. (Vol. The construction was undertaken by my father and defendant no. 2). It is correct that the construction took place with my consent.) ........... It is correct that Ex.P2 is the Will of my father. ........... It is correct that I represented the bank that NSCs be CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 61 handed over tome as administrator of all the legal heirs of my late father as per the Will. I do not remember as to where I deposited the proceeds of the NSCs. (Vol. I must have taken the consent of defendant no. 3 and 4), It is correct that I did not give the share of the proceeds of the NSCs to defendant Nos. 1 and 2.) ............ It is correct that defendant No. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 62,500/- to me in lieu of the Maruti car of my father. .............. I am businessman engaged in import of carpets in Canada.
............ I am in possession of the entire first floor as well as the annexe attached with the first floor of the suit property. We are three brothers and two sisters. The entire ground floor of the suit property is in possession of defendant No.2. The second floor is in the possession of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 who are my sisters are in possession of the entire basement. It is incorrect to suggest that the portions under occupation are as per the Will dated 19th October 1987 (Ex.P-2) of my late father. It is correct that I was a witness to Ex.P-2. I did not go through the contents of the Will before signing the same as witness. (Vol.) My father asked me to sign the Will and I accordingly signed the same. It is correct that I also signed as witness at the time of registration of Ex.P-2 before the concerned Sub Registrar.
............. I cannot say if vide Ex.D1/5, I wrote to the bank for return of National Savings Certificate of my father. It is correct that with Ex.D1/5, I also enclosed the Will of my late father Ex.P-2.
............ It is correct that I was present at the time of registration of the Will of my father before the concerned Sub Registrar.
............ The half portion of the suit property was mutated in my favour by DDA in September, 1984. It is wrong to suggest that Ms. Trevor Page was a tenant in the portion occupied by defendant No.1. Presently, Mr. Walia is a tenant in the first floor of the suit property and second floor is in the possession of a tenant who is a Japanese nationale. (Vol. The name of the tenant ts known to defendant No.1). It is correct that Mrs.Trevor Page was a tenant qua the second floor of the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that Ms.Trevor Page was paying rent to defendant No.1. (Vol. She was paying the rent to me). It is correct that the Japanese tenant is paying rent to CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 62 defendant no. 1).
............. I cannot say as to why Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in the account of my father by defendant no. 1."
82. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW1/ plaintiff would show that he has admitted that this property was constructed by defendant no. 1 and his father. Further perusal of the Will of the father would show that the property was given to defendant no. 1 and he was required to pay Rs. 60,000/- towards the same. To prove that defendant no. 1 has made payment of Rs. 60,000/- to the Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal, he has placed on record Ex. D1/3 dated 13.11.1987 which is a demand draft drawn on State Bank of India, Canada in favour of Sh. Harbans Kaur. Further attention is also drawn to Mark-G which is photocopy of the Will of father wherein there is a handwritten note thereby mentioning that Sh. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal came to India on 11.12.1987 and handed over him a demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- from Canada and deposited in his bank account which goes to his two daughters and Rs. 10,000/- were given to him. However the handwriting is Mark-G and was not exhibited as the original was stated to be lying with two daughters. However the daughters have chosen not to pursue this case.
83. It is the argument of plaintiff that Rs. 50,000/- draft was paid by defendant no. 1 for purchasing another property. However the same is a bare averment. Plaintiff CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 63 has filed another property document thereby showing that one property was alloted/ purchased by defendant no. 1 for which he paid money to the father. However no such evidence is lead by plaintiff thereby showing that this money was paid to the father for purchasing a different property. Only filing of another property document itself proves nothing. Further this money was to be paid to the daughters. It was for the daughters to come to the witness box to prove that they had not received the amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Daughters filed a brief written statement on record in the year 2002 and thereafter decided not to pursue this case. After the matter was kept for orders, written submissions have been filed by defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 thereby submitting that they have not received this amount, beside other submissions. However they did not step into the witness box to prove their case. Hence only filing of written submissions would not be of any help to defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4.
84. Further in a family dispute, it is the family members who actually know what transpired while dealing with the family matters. Defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 specifically stated that second floor was constructed out of the funds of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 have chosen not to lead any evidence. Plaintiff as PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that second floor was constructed by father and defendant no. 1 and it was done with his consent. Hence second floor was CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 64 constructed out of the funds of father and defendant no. 1 and plaintiff had knowledge of the same when it was being constructed. Hence he is estopped from denying rights to the defendant no. 1in the said floor especially when plaintiff has not paid any money for construction of the said floor.
85. It is also pleaded by plaintiff that it is HUF property.
However no details are given by plaintiff regarding the existence of such HUF, the accounts of such HUF, how the HUF was operating. Hence the claim that the property belongs to HUF is unsupported with any pleadings on record. Since the parties are in possession of the respective floors as per the Will of the father, and Will of the father has been acted upon, plaintiff is estopped from claiming otherwise. Hence plaintiff is not entitled to any accounts from any of the defendants qua rents/ mesne profits/ damages. Further as far as the claim regarding movables is concerned, which are mentioned in Annexure-A and Annexure-C with the plaint, it is not proved that they are lying in possession of which particular defendant. Since the plaintiff need to specifically plead with respect to each movable property that it is lying in the possession of a particular defendant and thereafter lead the evidence on the same, however the same is neither specifically pleaded nor specifically proved regarding the movables.
86. Further as observed above, the parties are in occupation of different floors as per the division by their CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 65 father as is mentioned in his Will dated 19.10.1987. Hence the property is already partitioned by the parties amongst themselves during the lifetime of their father only and they are also in occupation of their respective portions. Hence the property is already partitioned by meets and bounds. Hence no separate preliminary decree is required to be passed. Further as all the parties are in possession of their respective shares, no one is entitled to any accounts from the other.
87. From the pleadings of the parties in suit titled as "Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal" , following issues were framed vide order dt 23.01.2009 :-
1) Whether Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal was not competent to make a Will dated 17.03.1977 in respect of the portion of the suit property bequeathed by her under the said Will? OPD1D2 As observed above, the Will dated 17.03.1977 is proved.
Smt. Avtar Kaur Paintal was competent to make the said Will. This issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2.
2) Whether the Will dated 19.10.1987 executed by Late Sh. Harbans Singh Paintal is his genuine last Will and was executed by him while he was in sound disposing mind? OPD1D2 As observed above, the Will dated 19.10.1987 is proved CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 66 and is valid. This issue is decided in favour of defendants and against plaintiff.
3) Whether the undated no objection certificates allegedly given by the defendants for mutation of the suit property are forged and illegally manipulated? OPD1D2 As it is already held that both the Wills are valid and are proved on record without taking into consideration the no objection certificates involved in this issue and hence any finding on this issue has become inconsequential. Hence the issue being inconsequential, and not necessary and has become more of academic in nature, is not decided on merits.
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have any share in the suit property which include movables also, and if so, to what share? OPP.
As observed above, plaintiff is entitled to entire first floor along with the area as is mentioned in the Will of the father dated 19.10.1987. Further plaintiff is also in possession of this area. This issue is accordingly decided.
5) Relief.
In view of above detailed discussion, a final decree of partition is hereby passed thereby declaring that all the parties are entitled to partition of suit property bearing no. C-7/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi as per the Will of the father. Further all the parties are already in possession of CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal 67 the respective floors which have fallen to their share. Hence a final decree of partition is hereby passed thereby dividing the property bearing no. C-7/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi by meets and bounds as per the Will of the father dated 19.10.1987.
File be consigned to record room.
Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly.
Announced in open court on 03.02.2023.
(TWINKLE WADHWA) ADJ-04/South-East, SaketCourts, New Delhi/03.02.2023 CS DJ No. 9799/16 Ravinder Pal Singh Paintal Vs. Gulshan Vir Singh Paintal