Mr Mohan Lal Narang vs Mr. Ashmeet Narang, & Ors on 1 April, 2024

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mr Mohan Lal Narang vs Mr. Ashmeet Narang, & Ors on 1 April, 2024

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Sharma

                                    $~13
                                    *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    +           CS(OS) 57/2023, CRL.M.A. 15014/2023, I.A. 1583/2023, I.A.
                                                9101/2023, I.A. 9102/2023, I.A. 10675/2023, I.A. 24452/2023, I.A.
                                                2466/2024, I.A. 2467/2024, I.A. 6958/2024

                                                MR MOHAN LAL NARANG                      ..... Plaintiff
                                                            Through: Mr.Arun Sri Kumar and
                                                                     Mr.Abhyudaya Shishodia, Advts.
                                                            versus

                                                MR. ASHMEET NARANG, & ORS.               ..... Defendants
                                                             Through: Mr.Praveen Suri and Mr.Sarthak
                                                                      Sharma, Advocates for defendants
                                                                      no.1 to 7.
                                                CORAM:
                                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
                                                                                      ORDER

% 01.04.2024

1. An affidavit of service filed by Mr.Abhyudaya Shishodia, counsel for the plaintiff dated 07.07.2023 has been filed.

2. As per the affidavit of service and the documents annexed along with, respondent no.8 has duly been served. However, as defendant no.8 has not appeared despite service, therefore he is proceeded ex-parte. I.A. 1583/2023 (u/O. XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC)

3. The present application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC with the following prayer:

a. Grant an ad-interim ex-parte injunction, directing the Defendants to maintain the status quo and restrain them and/or their agents, officials, authorized personnel, from transferring, alienating, selling, mortgaging, encumbering, This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 20:34:23 or otherwise creating any third-party rights in the Suit Property, till the next date of hearing.

b. Grant temporary injunction, directing the Defendants to maintain status quo and restrain them and/ or their agents, officials, authorised personnel, from transferring, alienating, selling, mortgaging, encumbering, or otherwise creating any third-party rights in the Suit Property, till the final disposal of the captioned suit;

c. Grant temporary injunction, restraining the Defendants and/or their agents, officials, authorised personnel, from making any material or permanent or temporary constructions or alterations on the Suit Property, till the final disposal of the captioned suit;

4. In the backdrop, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition, injunction, rendition of accounts and damages along with pendente lite and future interest.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff's father Mr. Kasturi Singh Narang @Mr. Kartar Singh was allotted Quarter No. H/113, Hudson Lane, Delhi built on a plot measuring 50 sq. yards. Sh.Jai Ram Das i.e. brother of Mr. Kasturi Singh Narang @Mr. Kartar Singh was allotted the adjacent Quarter No. H/114, Hudson Lane, Delhi. Mr.Attar Singh, who was the brother-in-law of Mr. Kasturi Singh Narang @Mr. Kartar Singh was allotted Quarter No. H/109, Hudson Lane, Delhi.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that after migrating from Pakistan, the plaintiff's father along with Jai Ram Das and Mr. Attar Singh purchased a shop at 39 Edward Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi with the joint family funds/joint family nucleus they brought from Pakistan, in the name of Jai Ram Das. Further, with the joint family This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 20:34:23 funds the inventory was purchased and the business of retail sale of jewellery items from the aforesaid shop under the name and style of 'Nirankari Jewelers' was started. It has been stated that in 1953, Mr. K.S. Narang died having been murdered intestate leaving behind the following 4 heirs late Smt. Kartar Devi, Mrs. Surjeet Kaur, Mr. Baldev Narang and Mr. Mohan Lal Narang i.e. the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff's case is that after the death of the plaintiff's father, the joint family business was managed by Mr. Jai Ram Das and Mr. Attar Singh. Subsequently, in the year 1966, Plot No. H/113, Hudson Lane quarter, New Delhi was allotted in the name of Smt. Kartar Devi. However, the consideration amount of Rs.540/- was paid out of the joint family fund/nucleus as Smt. Kartar Devi was a housewife and had no source of income. The plaintiff has submitted that in the year 1972, the brother of the plaintiff i.e. Mr.Baldev Narang was inducted into the family business in place of his deceased father. The sons of Mr.Jai Ram Das and Mr.Attar Singh were also inducted and therefore the business 'Nirankari Jewelers' was managed by the following five members of the family i.e. Mr. Jai Ram Das, Mr. Attar Singh, Ramesh Narang (S/o Jai Ram Das), Man Mohan Singh (S/o Attar Singh) and Baldev Narang (S/o K.S. Narang). The plaintiff at the age of 21 went to USA for further studies.

8. It has further submitted that in the year 1976 under the Redevelopment Scheme of Kingsway Camp of the Delhi Development Authority plot no. 588 in Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi was allotted in the name of Plaintiff's mother Smt.Kartar Devi in lieu of Plot No. H/113 in Hudson Lane. The plaintiff returned from the This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 20:34:23 USA between 1977 to 1979 and started working as a Finance Manager in a private company. However, he continued to reside in the family at 588 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and later in the year 1980, he went back to USA and settled there only.

9. The plaintiff further submits that during the period 1989 to 2019, Mr. Baldev Narang visited USA several times with his family and there were cordial relations between the two families. In the year 1990, late Smt. Kartar Devi i.e. mother of the plaintiff died. It has further been submitted that in 2005, Mr. Baldev Narang purchased a house at E-2/2 Model Town II, Delhi from the income generated from the joint family business i.e. the 'Nirankari Jewelers' shop. In June, 2018, Mr. Baldev Narang died. The plaintiff submitted that he had been requesting since 2019 for the partition of the joint family property, however, the defendants have refused for the same.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Will as set up by the defendants in the written statement is forged and fabricated and therefore cannot be given effect. Learned counsel also submits that the following properties were bought out of the joint family business and are required to be partitioned:

Immovable Properties:

a) 588, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi which was given in exchange for the H/113, Hudson Lane quarter. House constructed on a 160 square yards' plot facing West to East with rented three floors - each floor with 2-3 bedrooms, living room, bathrooms and kitchen.

b) House at E-2/2 Model Town II, Delhi acquired and constructed by Baldev Narang from the income generated This is a digitally signed order.

c) Shukrana farms, near G.T. Road, Haryana border acquired in partnership of Baldev Narang and brothers-in- law Man Mohan Singh Narang and Jasbir Singh Narang (acquired after the year 2005 from the income generated from the joint family business);

d) Nirankari Jewels business, 77-84 Edward Line, Kingsway Camp showroom constructed by buying eight individual shops and combining them to form an attractive jewelry showroom. These shops were purchased, and the gold inventory was also purchased from the joint family funds raised from the joint family business and the money received from settlement qua Nirankari Jewellers shop at 39 Edward Line.

Movable Properties:

e) The moveable properties consist of Gold, Carpets, Utensils, Bonds/ Shares and Weapon (Pistol - Bernadelli .32 bore, model 90) which the plaintiff brought from USA in 1979 with a stamped notation on the plaintiff's passport at Delhi airport as "Released one pistol .32 bore ''BERNADELL Y" MODEL 90 - CAL .. 32 - ACP Sr. No. 115758 on payment of duty vide DOR No. 15145 - dated 17.7.79 - subject to the condition that the firearm shall not be sold, gifted or parted with for a period of five year from this date, etc. The matter has been reported to the ACP, Delhi at Defense Colony and is under investigation. The pistol cannot be traced by firearm authorities. Mr. Baldev Narang was the only person privy to and custodian of the firearm once the plaintiff left for permanent residency in the USA.

11. Learned counsel submits that till the pendency of the suit, the defendants may be restrained from transferring the possession or creating any third-party interest in the properties.

12. Learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 to 7 submits that property no.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 20:34:23 588, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi which was allotted in the name of Smt.Kartar Devi has been bequeathed in favour of late late Mr. Baldev Narang, who is the predecessor-in-interest of defendants no.1 to 5. It has further been submitted that in pursuance to the Will, the Conveyance Deed has also been executed in favour of defendants no.1 to 5 in the year 2000. Learned counsel for defendants has further submitted that house no. E-2/2 Model Town II, Delhi was purchased by Mr.Baldev Narang and his wife and the sale deed duly stands in the name of late Mr.Baldev Narang and his wife and therefore the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the same.

13. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that similarly, the Shukrana Farms near G.T. Road, Haryana border was bought by defendants no.1 and defendants no.6 & 7 i.e. Mr. Man Mohan Singh and Mr.Jasbir Singh Narang in their names and the sale deed is duly executed. It has been further submitted that the showroom i.e. 77-84 Edward Line, Kingsway Camp was purchased by the late Mr. Baldev Narang, Mr. Man Mohan Singh and Mr. Jasbir Singh Narang, and therefore in this property also, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest.

14. It has been submitted that the late Smt.Kartar Devi executed a registered Will dated 11.08.1987 in favour of Mr.Baldev Narang in which the plaintiff and defendant no.8 are the attesting witnesses. It has been submitted that therefore there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and no injunction can be granted.

15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has disputed the signature on the Will and set up a case that the Will 11.08.1987 is forged and This is a digitally signed order.

16. The condition for granting an injunction is very well settled in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Coca-Cola Co. AIR 1995 SC 2372 wherein it was interalia held as under:

The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the following tests -- (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the "balance of convenience" lies. [See: Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] , (SCC at pp. 731-32.] In order to protect the defendant while granting an interlocutory This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 20:34:23 injunction in his favour the court can require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.

17. In the present case, the case of the plaintiff is that all the properties as mentioned above have been purchased out of the joint family business and therefore it is required to be partitioned equally between the legal heirs. However, as of now, admittedly the title deed stands in the name of the defendants. It is also a matter of the record that no declaration has been sought in respect of the Will dated 11.08.1987. In these circumstances, I consider that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. In the present case since the title deeds stand in the name of defendants the right of the plaintiff is yet to be ascertained.

18. The application is accordingly dismissed.

I.A. 9101/2023

19. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that he does not want to press the present application at this stage and seeks liberty to press for the framing of issue by the court at the appropriate stage.

20. Liberty granted.

21. In view of the above, the present application stands disposed of.

I.A. 9102/2023

22. Learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present application with liberty to keep all his contentions and objections open to be raised at the appropriate time.

23. Liberty granted.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 20:34:23

24. In view of the above, the present application stands disposed of.

I.A. 10675/2023

25. Exemption granted, subject to all just exceptions.

26. Application stands disposed of.

I.A. 24452/2023

27. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for deposit of plaintiff's half share in the rental income earned from the family property at 588, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.

28. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that one of the suit property that is property at 588, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi which is a joint family property is being let out. It has been submitted that initially the rent was collected by late Mr. Baldev Narang i.e., brother of the plaintiff who would hand over the plaintiff's share in cash whenever the plaintiff would visit India until Mr. Baldev Narang's death in 2018.

29. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that thereafter defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have abruptly stopped giving the plaintiff his share from the rental income though the rental income continues to be earned from the suit property. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the defendants may be directed to deposit the plaintiff's share in all rental income being collected by them from tenants inducted in the Mukherjee Nagar House to the plaintiff on a monthly basis till the pendency of the present suit.

30. Learned counsel for the defendants has vehemently opposed the application. It has been submitted that at H.No. 588, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi was allotted in the name of late Smt. Kartar Devi and This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 20:34:23 this property was bequeathed in favour of Mr. Baldev Narang vide registered will dated 11.08.1997. The defendants have submitted that the plaintiff has also signed this will as an attesting witness. Plaintiff has denied his signature on the will and has submitted that the will is forged and fabricated.

31. Be that as it may, presently the position is that there is a registered will in favour of the predecessor in interest of defendant No.1 to 5 and the plaintiff is one of the attesting signatories on the same.

32. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 filed on behalf of the plaintiff was argued on similar grounds and has been dismissed.

33. In view of the above, the court is of the considered view that till the rights of the plaintiff is ascertained, no relief can be granted. Hence, the present application stands dismissed.

I.A. 2466/2024

34. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant Nos.

1 to 5 under Section 43 & 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for appointment of Mr. B N Srivastava as a hand-writing expert to compare the signatures of the plaintiff with those on the original will dated 11.08.1997.

35. It is the duty of the parties to collect the evidence to support their case. The evidence of a hand-writing expert will be appreciated by the court in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act.

36. The defendants shall be at liberty to get the hand-writing expert's opinion and place the same in evidence before the court in accordance with law. Plaintiff may also get an opinion from the hand-writing expert in accordance with law.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 20:34:23

37. However for the purpose of signature, the admitted signature of the plaintiff may be collected by the hand-writing expert from the registry in accordance with law.

38. In view of the above, the present application stands disposed of.

I.A. 6958/2024

39. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 12 CPC read with Chapter VIII Rule 1 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 for discovery of documents with the following prayers:

"(a) that the Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 be directed by this Hon‟ble Court to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been their possession and power, relating to matters in issue in the suit, inter alia as enumerated in the list at para 8 above;

(b) for such other orders or directions in respect of the above documents, as may in the circumstances of the case be deemed just and appropriate."

40. Issue notice.

41. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants has accepted the notice and seeks time to file the reply.

42. Let the reply be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

43. List on 14.05.2024 before Joint Registrar (Judicial). CS(OS) 57/2023 & CRL.M.A. 15014/2023

44. List before Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 14.05.2024.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 1, 2024rb/AR/ak/aj..

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2024 at 20:34:23

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders