Delhi District Court
Ram Kishore vs Mohan Dass on 24 January, 2026
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITEN MEHRA:
DISTRICT JUDGE 10: CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS: DELHI.
CS DJ NO. 616132/16
CNR NO. DLCT01-000739-2011
In the matter of:
SH. RAM KISHORE GUPTA
S/o Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta,
R/o 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. SH. MOHAN DASS GUPTA (DECEASED)
S/o Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta
R/o 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
THROUGH LRS.
(a) Smt. Shruti
W/o Pradeep
R/o LP-38, LIG flats Pitampura,
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.1/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Near Gopal Mandir
New Delhi-110088
Mob. 9899789066, 8368511097
(b) Aruna Gupta
W/o Arvind Gupta
R/o 9/2384, Gali no. 13
Kailash Nagar Delhi-110031
Mob. 9911218131, 7678127680
2. SH. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA (DECEASED)
S/o Late Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta
R/o 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
THROUGH LRS.
(a) Mrs. Neera Gupta (Wife)
(b) Mr. Nishant Gupta (son)
(c)Ms.DishaGupta(daughter)
All are major resident of 5C/40,
New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
3. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA (DECEASED)
Through his Lrs
(a) Smt. Chanchal Gupta
W/o Late Naresh Kumar Gupta
(b) Sh. Ankit Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta
(c) Sh.Ankur Gupta
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.2/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
S/o Late Naresh Kumar Gupta
S.no.3 to 5 R/o D-11/77, 1st floor,
Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085
(d) Smt. Ashika Tibrewal
D/o Late Naresh Kumar Gupta
W/o Late Naresh Kumar Tibrewal
R/o B-3/15, Second Floor,
Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi
4. RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA (DECEASED)
Through his Lrs
(a) Sh. Ashwani Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta
R/o 27, Vishali Pitampura
Delhi-110034
(b) Smt. Sneh Gupta
D/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta
R/o AM-99, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi-110088.
(d) Smt. Sushma Gupta
D/o Late Radhey Shyam Gupta
R/o C-22/11, Sector-3, Rohini
Delhi
5. URMIL SINGHAL
D/o late Chander Bhan Gupta
W/o Shri N.S Singhal
R/o B-8, Rohit Kunj, Pitampura,
Delhi-110037
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.3/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
6. URMILA
W/o Sh. Devender Kumar
C/o Shidbell Trading Co.
Rudki Road, near Maya Place,
Mujaffar Nagar, UP
.....Defendants
Date of institution: 04.01.2011
Date on which reserved for judgment: 28.08.2024
Date of decision : 24.01.2026
SUIT FOR PARTITION
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit for partition was originally instituted by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, owing to the enlargement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts in Delhi, the present suit was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the District Courts (Central District) vide order dated 18.01.2016 for further trial.
2. The plaintiff had originally instituted the present suit for partition only against the defendants no. 1 to 6 and the defendants CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.4/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
no.7 to 9 were impleaded subsequently vide order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Ld. Joint Registrar, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
3. It is pertinent to point out that the following suits, which were also pending between the parties, have also been disposed off vide separate judgments of even date:
a) Civil suit titled as 'Ram Kishore Gupta vs Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors', bearing CSDJ no. 616761, instituted by the plaintiff herein seeking a declaration that the plaintiff and defendants are the joint owners of the property no.3792, Khasra No.2033, Block K, Gali No.20, situated at Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, being the property of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta who expired intestate, along-
with cancellation of sale deed dated 17.07.2010 executed by Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta with respect to the suit property in favour of the defendant no.1 along with permanent injunction.
b) Civil suit titled as 'Mohan Dass Gupta vs Ram Kishore CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.5/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Gupta and Ors, bearing CSDJ no 613272/16, instituted by the defendant no.2 herein, seeking partition of property no.3792, Khasra No.2033, Block K, Gali No.20, situated at Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
PLAINTIFF'S VERSION AS PER THE PLAINT
4. As per the plaintiff, his mother Late Smt. Chameli Devi, wife of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta is stated to have been the owner of property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, admeasuring 270 sq. yards, being a triple storey building comprising of ground floor, first floor and barsati floor (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). Late Smt. Chameli Devi expired on 06.01.1980.
5. Late Smt. Chameli Devi and Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had five sons and two daughters, namely:
(i) Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta (eldest son, who predeceased her on 11.04.1960 and is represented by his son, the defendant no.2);
(ii) Sh. Ram Kishore Gupta (son/plaintiff);CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.6/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
(iii) Sh. Mohan Dass Gupta (son/defendant no.1);
(iv) Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta (son/ defendant no.7),
(v) Sh. Naresh Gupta (son),
(vi) Smt. Urmil Singhal (daughter/ defendant no.8); and
(vii) Smt. Raj Dulari (daughter, who is represented by her daughter, the defendant no.9).
6. The son and sole legal heir of Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta, i.e. Sh. Vinod Kumar has been impleaded as defendant no.2. The legal heirs of Sh. Naresh Gupta have been impleaded as defendants no. 3-6. The defendant no.9 Smt. Urmila is stated to be the daughter of Smt. Raj Dulari
7. That Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta / defendant no.7, one of the sons of Late Smt. Chameli Devi executed a relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to his share. Further, Late Smt. Urmila Singhal / defendant no.8 executed a relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2005 with respect to her share in favour of all the legal heirs of Late Smt. Chameli Devi. Further, Smt. Urmila / defendant no.9 (w/o Sh. Davinder Kumar and d/o CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.7/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Late Smt. Raj Dulari, who is the daughter of one of the sister of the plaintiff) also executed a relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 in favour of the plaintiff.
8. The plaintiff thus claims to be owner of half share in the suit property along with the defendants no.1 and 2 having 1/6th share each and the defendants no. 3-6 together having 1/6th share.
9. The plaintiff further states that Late Smt. Chameli Devi executed a will dated 20.10.1979 bequeathing the suit property to her husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, who is stated to have further executed a will dated 30.05.1983, which was subsequently canceled by him vide a registered document dated 09.03.1984. As per the plaintiff, the suit property thus fell to the share of the legal heirs in equal shares, who also accepted the cancellation of the will of Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. In this context, the aforementioned relinquishment deeds have been executed by the defendants no. 7
- 9.
10. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of half portion of the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.8/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
ground floor and a portion of the barsati floor, shown in red colour in the site plan filed with plaint. The defendant no.1 is stated to be in possession of the portion shown in green colour in the site plan. The defendant no.2 is stated to be in possession of the portion shown in blue colour in the site plan. The defendants no. 3 - 6 are stated to be in possession of the portion shown in yellow colour in the site plan.
11. The plaintiff claims to have requested the defendants to partition the suit property by metes and bounds and give him his half share in the suit property, but to no avail.
12. Hence, the plaintiff has been constrained to file this present suit seeking partition of the suit property by way of metes and bounds claiming half share for himself, 1/6th share each for the defendants no.1 and 2, and 1/6th share together for the defendants no.3-6.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS Written statement of the defendants no.1 (Sh. Mohan Dass CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.9/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Gupta)
13. The defendant no.1 Sh. Mohan Dass Gupta filed his written statement in which he raised the preliminary objections that the present suit was not maintainable as there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the suit property was stated to be undervalued as the market value of the same was about 8 - 9 crores. The suit was also stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely their brother Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta, their sister Smt. Urmil Singhal and the legal representatives (LRs) of other sister Smt. Raj Dulari.
14. The plaintiff was also stated to have concealed the following material facts in the plaint:
(a) That their father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was the owner of three properties, namely (i) property no. 5C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi - 110005 (suit property); (ii) property no. 3792, Gali no. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 and (iii) property no. 4668, Gali No. 49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005.CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.10/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
(b) In the year, 1960, the parties orally partitioned all the above three properties. The property of sl no. (ii) property no. 3792, Gali no. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
- 110005 was given to the eldest son Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta / defendant no.7 . The property at sl no. (iii) property no. 4668, Gali No. 49, Raigarpur, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 was given to Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta. The suit property at sl no. (i) property no. 5C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi - 110005 (suit property), was given to all the remaining three brothers i.e. Mohan Dass Gupta (defendant no.1), Ram Kishore Gupta (plaintiff) and Naresh Kumar Gupta. Further, the parents did not give any share to the two daughters in the properties as they were well settled in life.
(c) That Sh. Trilok Chand expired in April, 1960 leaving behind his wife and son Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta/ defendant no.2. After the death of Sh. Trilok Chand's wife, the defendant no.2 sold his property no. 4668, Gali No. 49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh and purchased a shop in Hapur, Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). After sometime, the defendant no.2 CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.11/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
also sold the said shop at Hapur, U.P. and came back to reside in the suit property, despite the fact that he had already taken his share, however the father of the parties again gave him 1/4th share in the suit property, in terms of his registered will dated 30.05.1983.
(d) That Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta/defendant no.7 has been in actual, physical possession of the property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, since 1960 as its absolute owner as the same falls in his share. In this regards, the defendant no.7 also executed and signed a declaration dated 23.01.1967 declaring that he has no concern or interest in another property no. 5C/40, Karol Bagh and property No. 4668, Gali No. 49, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(e) The father of the parties Sh. Chander Bhan executed a will dated 30.05.1983 in respect of his properties, which was duly registered as Document No. 1505 in Book No.3, Vol. 244 at pages 3 - 6 with the Sub-Registrar III, New CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.12/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Delhi. In terms of the said will, property No. 3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura was given to his eldest son Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta and the suit property No. 5C/40, was given to his other four sons namely Mohan Dass Gupta, Naresh Kumar Gupta, Ram Kishore Gupta and Vinod Kumar Gupta (son of his pre-deceased son Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta) and nothing was given to both the daughters. The original will of the father is stated to be in the custody and possession of the plaintiff, which fact has also been stated by him a number of times.
(f) As per the defendant, it has come into his knowledge that the plaintiff is blackmailing Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta / defendant no.7 on the ground that their father Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had canceled his will dated 30.05.1983 vide a registered deed dated 09.03.1984, owing to which, the defendant no.7 was now not the owner of the property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, New Delhi. The plaintiff further told the defendant no.7 that the other brothers were not having the knowledge of the cancellation of their CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.13/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
father's will and he would allow the defendant no.7 to sell the aforementioned property, provided that the defendant no.7 execute a relinquishment deed in the plaintiff's favour with respect to the property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh (suit property) and also give around 10% of the total cost of his Regharpura property. However, when the defendant no.7 did not accept the same, the plaintiff then sent a legal notice dated 20.12.2005 claiming that all the brothers and sisters were shareholders in his Regharpura property on the basis of the cancellation of the will of their father. It is submitted that the said legal notice dated 20.12.2005 was sent by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2 and Sh. Naresh Gupta, without their consent and without any instructions having been given by them to the advocates in question. The plaintiff and the advocates in question have also committed a criminal offence in this regards. The defendant no.1 claims that these facts came into his knowledge when the defendant no.7 filed his written statement alongwith documents in a connected suit bearing no. 147/2010 titled as 'Ram Kishore Gupta vs CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.14/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Radhey Shyam Gupta'.
(g) Accordingly, the defendant no.7 was compelled to execute a relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 in favour of the plaintiff, thereby relinquishing his alleged 1/7th share in the suit property, when in fact the defendant no.7 had no share in the same. The defendant no.7 was forced to execute the said relinquishment deed so that the plaintiff would not create any problem in the defendant no.7 selling off his Regharpura property. Further, the plaintiff also signed an affidavit in March, 2010 affirming that property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi had been bequeathed in favour of the defendant no.7 in terms of the will of their father dated 30.05.1983. This fact shows that even in March, 2010 the plaintiff was either concealing the fact of cancellation of their father's will or had the knowledge that the said cancellation of the will was forged and fabricated. The act of the plaintiff in executing the said affidavit was also stated to be at odds with his legal notice dated 20.12.2005. Hence, the plaintiff was dis-entitled from CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.15/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
seeking any relief from this Court.
(h) As per the defendant no.1, the defendant no.7 sold the property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Delhi to one Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta vide a registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.2010 for a total consideration of Rs. 1.6 crores. Out of this amount, the defendant no.7 had to give around Rs. 20 lakhs to the plaintiff.
(i) However, even after getting 1/7th share and around Rs. 20 lakhs from the defendant no.7, the plaintiff in order to further blackmail the defendant no.7, has filed another suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against the defendant no.7 and all the other brothers and sisters their Lrs, claiming equal right and share in property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, without even filing a suit for partition of the said property.
(j) As per the defendant no.1, from the averments of the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.16/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
plaint, it has come to his knowledge that the plaintiff has also obtained a relinquishment deed 27.01.2010 from the defendant no.9. He has submitted that infact the defendant no.9 had earlier executed a relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 in favour of all the brothers, which fact has been concealed by the plaintiff from the Court. It is submitted that in view of the will of their father, the defendant no.9 had no right, title or interest in the suit property and hence, her relinquishment deed is infructuous. As per the defendant no.1, the defendant no.9 has told him that the plaintiff had infact brought her to sign some power-of-attorney before the Sub-Registrar and fraudulently got her to execute the relinquishment deed in question, for which she was also in the process of filing a suit for cancellation of the relinquishment deed in question.
(k) The defendant no.1 further submits that he was surprised to note of the cancellation of will dated 30.05.1983 of their father. Apart from the plaintiff, no other brother/sister was even having knowledge of the said cancellation. As per the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.17/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
defendant no.1, the said cancellation has been forged by the plaintiff, as their father Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was seriously ill since January, 1984 till his death in July, 1984 and was not in a sound state of health or mind. Further, the signature and thumb impression on the cancellation of the will also did not belong to their father. Also, the said cancellation deed was witnessed by a close friend of the plaintiff and husband of the sister of the plaintiff's own wife. Hence, both the witnesses to the said cancellation deed were also interested witnesses, which has been prepared in collusion with the plaintiff.
(l) The defendant no.8, Smt. Urmil Singhal had also executed a relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2005 in favour of all the five brothers. Although, she had no right to execute the said relinquishment deed, keeping in view of the will dated 30.05.1983. In case her relinquishment deed is proved as genuine, then the defendant no.7 is also entitled to get 2.8571% share in the suit property and hence a necessary party in the present suit. Therefore the suit is liable to be CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.18/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
(m) It is further submitted that in case the cancellation of the will of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta is proved as being genuine, then the share of the plaintiff come to 45.7143% and share of the defendant no.7 comes to 2.8571% and the share of the defendant no.1 comes to 17.1428%; the share of Lrs of Naresh Gupta somes to 17.1428% and share of Lrs of Trilok Chand Gupta comes to 17.28% in the suit property.
(n) In case, the cancellation of will is proved to be forged and fabricated, then the share of the plaintiff, defendant no.1, Lrs of Sh. Naresh Gupta and Lrs of Sh. Trilok Gupta would be 1/4th share each in the suit property. Further, the defendant no.7 and the sisters would not get any share in the suit property in terms of the will dated 30.05.1983.
15. In the reply on merits, the defendant no.1 did not deny that Late Smt. Chameli Devi, who expired on 06.01.1980, was the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.19/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
owner of the suit property, i.e. property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The defendant no.1 submitted that the relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 executed by the defendant no.7 in favour of the plaintiff and the relinquishment deeds executed by the defendants no. 8 and 9 in favour of the plaintiff were infructuous and not legally valid, as they were not having any right in the suit property in terms of the will dated 30.05.1983.
16. The defendant no.1 reiterated that in case the Court finds the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta to have been cancelled, the share of the parties in the suit property would be Plaintiff: 45.7143%, defendant no.1 : 17.1428%, defendant no.2 : 17.1428%, defendants no. 3-6: 17.1428% and that of defendant no.7 as 2.8571%. However, in case the will dated 30.05.1983 is found to be subsisting, the suit property shall be equally divided into four portions.
17. The defendant no.1 further denied that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had cancelled his will dated 30.05.1984 vide a registered cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984. He also denied that the parties CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.20/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
were in possession of the portions of the suit property as stated by the plaintiff. The site plan filed by the plaintiff was also denied as being wrong and incorrect, with the size of the rooms depicted therein also being not correct. It was submitted that in fact, the plaintiff was residing in property no. 3-C/43, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi along with his family, even as per the census record of the government and had incorrectly shown his residence in the suit property.
18. The defendant no.1 denied that the plaintiff had sought for the partition of the suit property by way metes and bounds, which had been denied to him. It was also submitted that the value of the suit property in the present case was around Rs. 8 - 9 crores. The defendant no.1 therefore sought for the dismissal of the present suit and claimed 1/4th share in the suit property in terms of the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. He also sought to declare the cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984 as being forged and fabricated.
19. At this stage I may also point out that the defendant no.1 CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.21/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
herein also filed another suit for partition of property no. 3792, Kh. No. 2033, Block K, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005, (as plaintiff no.1 in the said suit along with the present defendants no.3 - 6 as plaintiffs no 2 - 5) titled as 'Mohan Dass and Ors vs . Ram Kishore Gupta and Ors.' in which the defendant no.1 has asserted that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta expired intestate after having cancelled his will dated 30.05.1983 vide cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984.
Written statement of the defendant no.2 (Sh. Vinod Kumar)
20. The defendant no.2 raised the preliminary objection that he was a patient of Schizophrenia for the last 29 years and was a mentally disturbed person to the extent of 71%.
21. The defendant no.2 stated that the suit property was not capable of being divided by way of metes and bounds and the plaint was liable to be dismissed on this ground. It was submitted that the answering defendant no.2 was co-owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/7th undivided share. He submitted that the site plan filed by the plaintiff was incorrect not as per the actual CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.22/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
site. It was also submitted that the plaintiff was a habitual litigant, having also filed another suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction in respect of property no. 3792, Khasra no. 2033, Block K, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, which was also pending adjudication.
22. In the reply on merits, the defendant no.2 submitted that the site plan filed by the plaintiff was incorrect. He further submitted that Late Smt. Chameli Devi had expired on 06.01.1980, leaving behind five sons and two daughters and his father Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta was the eldest son.
23. In reply to the para no.3 of the plaint concerning the execution of relinquishment deeds by the defendants no.7 - 9, the answering defendant no.2 neither admitted nor denied the same and stated that the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same. The shares in the suit property, as stated by the plaintiff were also denied.
24. In reply to the para no.5 of the plaint concerning the execution of will dated 20.10.1979 by Late Smt. Chameli Devi in favour of CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.23/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
her husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and his execution of will dated 30.05.1983 and it's subsequent cancellation on 09.03.1984, the answering defendant no.2 neither admitted nor denied the same and stated that the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same.
25. In reply to the para no.6 of the plaint concerning the possession of the parties over the parts of the suit property, the defendant no.2 neither admitted nor denied the same and stated that the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same.
26. The answering defendant no.2 denied that the plaintiff had requested the defendants numerous times for partition of the suit property, which had been refused. It was submitted that the value of the suit property was more than Rs. 10 crores. The defendant no.2 sought for the dismissal of the suit with cost. Written statement of the defendants no. 3 - 6 (Chanchal Gupta, Ankit Gupta, Ankur Gupta and Ashika Gupta all Lrs of Late Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta)
27. The answering defendants no. 3-6 raised the preliminary CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.24/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
objections that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with cleans hands and had concealed material facts concerning the suit property. It was submitted that the value of the suit property was more than Rs. 6 crores and the plaintiff had undervalued the same.
28. In the reply on merits, the answering defendants no. 3-6 admitted that Late Smt. Chameli Devi, who expired on 06.01.1980 was the owner of the suit property. It was further submitted that the relinquishment deed executed by the defendant no.7 in favour of the plaintiff was fraudulent. With respect to the relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2005 executed by the defendant no.8 in favour of the parties, the same was stated to be genuine. However, the relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 executed by the defendant no.9 was stated to be a fraudulent one as some other lady had signed in her place at the behest of the plaintiff. It was submitted that the plaintiff and the answering defendants had 1/5th share in the suit property.
29. The answering defendants no. 3-6 admitted that Late Smt. CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.25/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Chameli Devi executed a will dated 20.10.1979 in favour of her husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, who executed a will dated 30.05.1983, which was subsequently cancelled on 09.03.1984.
30. The answering defendants no. 3-6 denied that the parties were in possession of the portions of the suit property as stated in the plaint. It was submitted that the plaintiff was in possession of half portion of the ground floor and only 1/4th portion of the barsati floor. The averment of the plaintiff of having sought partition of the suit property by way of metes and bounds was also denied. However, it was submitted that they no objection to the division of the suit property in 1/5th share.
31. The answering defendants no. 3-6 also sought dismissal of the suit with costs.
Written statement of the defendant no. 7 (Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta)
32. The defendant no.7 raised the preliminary objection that the present suit was barred by the principles of Order II rule 2 CPC as prior to the filing of the present suit, the plaintiff had filed Suit CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.26/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
No. 147/2010. Further, the plaintiff is stated to have wilfully suppressed and misrepresented facts in the plaint. The plaint was also stated to be barred by limitation as the parents of the parties had long expired and despite the plaintiff having sent legal notice dated 20.12.2005, no suit for partition had been filed by him earlier.
33. It was also submitted that the plaintiff had suppressed the fact that earlier he had served legal notice dated 20.12.2005 on the answering defendant no.7, through his counsel Sh. P.C. Gupta, seeking division of the property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which was duly replied to vide reply dated 17.01.2006. The plaintiff also executed an affidavit in March, 2010 admitting that Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had executed a will, duly registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar as Document no. 1505, Additional Book No. 3, Vol No. 244 at pages no. 3-6 on 02.06.1983, whereby the aforementioned property was bequeathed to the defendant no.7. The plaintiff also declared in the said affidavit that he had no objection in case the aforementioned property was mutated in the name of the defendant CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.27/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
no.7. Hence, the plaintiff was estopped from filing the present suit. It is submitted that despite having taken a relinquishment deed from the defendant no.7, the plaintiff had reneged on his own words and had also illegally retained the affidavit. It was submitted that all the properties left behind by Late Smt. Chameli Devi and Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta were liable to be partitioned between the parties, with the defendant no.7 being entitled to 1/7th share therein. It was submitted that the relinquishment deed executed by the defendant no.7 was no longer binding on him, having been procured by the plaintiff by fraud.
34. The defendant no.7 sought to present the following facts concerning the present case:
(a) Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, in his lifetime, had settled the devolution of the properties of himself and his wife in the year 1960 itself. Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta gave to the defendant no.7 exclusively, the property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which was in his possession since then. The defendant no.7 was also paying the house tax and maintaining the said property.CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.28/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
(b) Vide the family settlement in the year 1960, Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta also gave another house in Gali no. 49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to his other son, i.e. Late Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta, father of the defendant no.2.
(c) Vide the same settlement the suit property was apportioned to the defendant no.1, plaintiff and Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta, while one share in the property was retained by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta for himself.
(d) Although the suit property was in the name of Late Smt. Chameli Devi, it was actually the property of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, who had purchased it for the benefit of the family.
(e) Disputes had been raised by the plaintiff after more than 25 years of the death of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, whereas parties were in the settled possession of their CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.29/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
respective properties after the family settlement in the year 1960.
(f) The plaintiff had also got executed a relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 from the answering defendant no.7, relinquishing his 1/7th share in the suit property.
(g) The plaintiff also executed an affidavit in favour of the answering defendant no.7 admitting the execution and legality of the registered will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and giving no objection to the transfer of property in the name of the defendant no.7. The original of the said affidavit was retained by the plaintiff on the pretext of getting it attested and only an unattested photocopy was in the possession of the answering defendant no.7. However, the plaintiff later backed out and has filed the present false and frivolous suit, the relinquishment deed was not binding on the defendant no.7 anymore. Hence, all the properties of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta were now to be partitioned with equal shares. In case, it is proved that CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.30/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
there was no family settlement, then all the properties of Smt. Chander Bhan Gupta and Smt. Chameli Devi are to be partitioned equally between the parties.
(h) That Late Smt. Chameli Devi had predeceased her husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and left behind a will dated 20.10.1979, thereby bequeathing the suit property in his name. Hence, Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta became the absolute owner of the suit property and within his lifetime, settled the properties in favour of his sons. Hence, the rental income of the suit property of about Rs. 30,000/- was also never shared by the answering defendant no.7 with anyone.
(i) That the original will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had also been retained by the plaintiff and was given by him to the defendant no.7 only in the year 2010, after having obtained from him a relinquishment deed with respect to the suit property. Further a panchnama executed by Late Sh. Chander Chan Gupta confirming the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.31/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
settlement of the property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in favour of the defendant no.7 is also still retained by the plaintiff.
(j) That the defendant no.7 was suffering from various ailments, which was in the knowledge of the plaintiff, who despite the same was subjecting the defendant no.7 to frivolous litigations.
(k) That the plaintiff had filed the present suit in collusion with some of the other defendants, particularly the defendant no.8.
35. In the reply on merits, the defendant no.7 denied that Late Smt. Chameli Devi was the owner of the suit property and stated that no site plan had been supplied to him along with the copy of the plaint. Further, the defendant no.7 stated that the relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 was got executed from him by the plaintiff under the assurance that the plaintiff would not dispute the registered will dated 30.05.1983 or the family settlement. Further, the plaintiff had promised to give a no- CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.32/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
objection certificate with respect to mutation of the property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi in favour of the defendant no.7. The plaintiff also gave an unattested photocopy of his affidavit to the defendant no.7, and promised to give the original after attestation. However, the plaintiff had instead turned dishonest and filed false suits.
36. The defendant no.7 also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to the shares in the suit property as claimed by him. It was also submitted that the plaintiff had withheld the original will of Late Smt. Chameli Devi. The defendant no.7 denied that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta ever cancelled his will dated 30.05.1983. He submitted that the alleged cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984 had been forged by the plaintiff. Further, the marginal witness no.1 in the cancellation deed was not known to Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and was a friend of the plaintiff. The marginal witness no.2 was the Sadhu, husband of the sister of the plaintiff's wife. Hence, the alleged relinquishment deed was not binding on any party.
37. The defendant no.7 also denied that the parties were in CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.33/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
possession of the portions of the suit property as claimed by the plaintiff in para no.6 of the plaint. The defendant no.7 reiterated that all the properties left behind by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and Late Smt. Chameli Devi were liable to be partitioned, with the answering defendant no.7 having 1/7th share therein.
38. The defendant no.7 further denied that the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit property as claimed by him and denied that any cause of action had arisen in his favour to file the present suit.
39. By way of a counter-claim, the defendant no.7 sought for partitioning of all the properties of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta by way of metes and bounds, in case the settlement of properties in the year 1960 was not proved. The defendant no.7 denied that the suit was liable to be decreed as prayed for by the plaintiff. Written statement of the defendant no. 8 (Smt. Urmil Singhal)
40. The defendant no.8 raised the preliminary objection that the present suit was an abuse of the process of law as the plaintiff CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.34/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
was guilty of suggestion veri and suggestion falsi, and had not approached the Court with clean hands. Further, the requisite stamp duty had not been paid by the plaintiff and the suit was liable to dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of parties.
41. In the reply on merits, the defendant no.8 admitted that Late Sh. Chameli Devi was the owner of the suit property, which was described in the site plan. She also admitted that Late Smt. Chameli Devi expired on 06.01.1980 leaving behind her husband and children as stated in the plaint. However, she specifically denied that she or the defendants no. 7 or 9 had executed any relinquishment deeds in favour of the plaintiff. She also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit property by virtue of the said relinquishment deeds.
42. The defendant no.8 also denied that Late Smt. Chameli Devi had executed a will dated 20.10.1979 bequeathing the suit property to her husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, who also executed a will dated 30.05.1983 bequeathing the portions of the suit property to his legal heirs. She also denied that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta cancelled the will dated 30.05.1983 by a CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.35/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
registered document on 09.03.1984. She denied that the suit property fell to the legal heirs in equal shares. The defendant no.8 also denied that the suit property was under the occupation of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and the defendants no.3-6 as stated in the plaint. The defendant no.8 also denied that the plaintiff had requested the parties to the suit to divide the suit property by way of metes and bounds, which was refused. The defendant no.8 denied that any cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit. The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the present suit was also denied. The defendant no.8 sought for the dismissal of the present suit with exemplary cost. Written statement of the defendant no. 9 (Smt. Urmila, w/o Sh. Devinder Kaur)
43. The defendant no.9, Smt. Urmila w/o Sh. Devinder Kaur submitted that she had already executed a relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 in favour of the plaintiff and admitted the same as being true and correct. She stated that she did not want any share in the suit property. However, if for any reason the Court came to the conclusion that she was entitled to a share, she requested that the same may be given to her. She prayed that she may be deleted CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.36/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
from the array of parties.
REPLICATION BY THE PLAINTIFF
44. The plaintiff filed his replication in which he reiterated the contents of the plaint as true and correct.
ISSUES FRAMED
45. Vide order dated 01.03.2012, the following issues were framed for consideration in the present suit:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for taking partition and if so to what extent the plaintiff is entitled to the share of the suit property? OPP
2. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without cause of action in the present form? OPD
46. Subsequently, vide order dated 04.03.2015, the following additional issues were framed in the present suit, which are presently numbered as:
4. Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC? OPD
5. To what share, if any, and in which of the properties, are the parties entitled to partition? OPP/OPD
6. Whether late Mr. Chander Bhan Gupta had cancelled or revoked the Will dated 30th May, 1983 registered on 2nd June, 1983? If so, its effect? OPP CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.37/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
7. Whether the Relinquishment Deed dated 28 th February, 2010 is not enforceable against the defendant no.7? OPD7
8. Whether the Relinquishment Deed dated 13 th July, 2005 executed by defendant No.8 is forged? OPD8
9. Relief RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT SUIT
47. An application under section 151 CPC, bearing I.A. No. 9986/2012, was filed by the plaintiff seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner (LC) for recording of the evidence, which was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2012 and the evidence in the present matter was directed to be recorded before the LC.
48. As already mentioned earlier, an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC bearing I.A. No. 21521/2012 was filed by the plaintiff seeking impleadment of the defendants no.7 - 9 in the present matter, which was allowed vide order dated 13.03.2014.
49. Owing to the impleadment of the newly impleaded defendants no.7 - 9. The evidence/cross-examination of the witnesses by the ld. Counsels for the defendants no. 7 - 9 was again directed to be recorded by way of LC vide order dated 04.03.2015.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.38/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
50. Vide order dated 18.01.2016, owing to the enlargement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, the present suit was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court to the District Court for further proceedings.
51. Vide order dated 18.05.2016, the defendants no.8 and 9 were proceeded ex-parte in the present suit.
52. The defendant no.7, Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta unfortunately expired during the pendency of the present suit and his Lrs were brought on record vide order dated 17.02.2017. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF Evidence of the Plaintiff as PW-1:
53. The plaintiff Sh. Ram Kishore Gupta stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/X on 13.08.2012, in which the contents of the plaint were reiterated by him, which are not being repeated again for the sake of brevity.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.39/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
54. The plaintiff/PW-1 relied on the following documents in support of his case:
(a) Site plan of the suit property as Ex. P-1.
(b)Death certificate of Late Smt. Chameli Devi as Ex.
P-3/D1 3 to 6.
(c) Death of certificate of Late Smt. Raj Dulari as Ex. P-4/D1 3 - 6.
(d) Death certificate of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as Ex. P-8/D1 3 - 6.
(e) Will dated 20.10.1979 executed by Late Smt. Chameli Devi in favour of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as Mark A.
(f) Will dated 30.05.1983 executed by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as Mark B.
(g) Cancellation Deed dated 09.03.1984 as Ex. P-2/D3 to D6.
(h) Relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 executed by the defendant no.7 in his favour as Ex. PW-1/3.
(i) Relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2005 executed by the defendant no.8 as Ex. PW-5/D1 3 - 6.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.40/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
(j) Certified copy of relinquishment deed executed by the defendant no.9 as Ex. PW-1/4.
55. The plaintiff/PW-1 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 and the defendants no. 3 - 6 on 13.08.2012 during which he stated that it was correct that Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta was his brother and that Smt. Urmil was his sister and that Smt. Urmila was the daughter of his sister, i.e. Smt. Raj Dulari and that they had not been impleaded as parties to the present suit by him. The plaintiff also admitted that he had also filed another suit with respect to some other ancestral property, i.e. House No. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, New Delhi - 110005 seeking cancellation of sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction. He deposed that he had made as parties all the Lrs of his father, except his sisters. He deposed that Smt. Vijaya Gupta was his wife and Smt. Anu Gupta was his daughter-in-law. He admitted that the document Ex. PW-1/4 was witnessed by his wife daughter in law. He denied the suggestion that the document Ex. PW-1/4 did not bear his signatures. He admitted that he had signed the document Ex. PW-1/4 in the capacity of a releasee. He stated that he did not CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.41/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
know where the deed was drafted and by him and volunteered to state that Mrs. Urmila had got the same drafted herself. He stated that he was asked to reach the office of the Sub-Registrar by Smt. Urmila and the same was told to him one day prior. He stated that his wife and daughter-in-law accompanied him to the office of the Sub-Registrar on the suggestion of Smt. Urmila. He stated that he did not see anyone accompany Smt. Urmil and could not say whether she was alone or accompanied by some family member. He denied the suggestion that he had got the relinquishment deed dated Ex. PW-1/4 fraudulently executed by Urmila. He also denied the suggestion that since Ex. PW-1/4 was fraudulently got executed by him, hence it was only signed by family members and volunteered to state that the document Ex. PW-5/D1, 3 to 6, executed by Smt. Urmil Singhal was also witnessed by his wife.
56. The plaintiff further stated that he did not know whether Smt. Urmila had executed any relinquishment deed in favour of all the brothers of mother. He denied the suggestion that the original of this relinquishment deed had been handed over to him. The plaintiff further stated that it was not within his knowledge that CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.42/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Radhey Shyam Gupta had reduced into writing a family settlement amongst the Lrs on 23.01.1967. He deposed that they were five brothers and two sisters and their mother had pre-deceased the father. He denied the suggestion that he had filed a false suit to usurp the legitimate share of the other Lrs. Thereafter, the cross- examination of the plaintiff/PW-1 by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 and the defendants no. 3-6 was completed.
57. On 13.08.2012 itself, the plaintiff/PW-1 was next cross- examined by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2, during which he admitted that the defendant no.2/Sh. Vinod Kumar was having some 'mental problems'. However he could not say whether he was '71% mentally disabled'. He also admitted that it was correct that a guardian had also been appointed for Vinod Kumar in the pending suit on the application of his wife. He stated that he did not know whether he had filed the said application. He stated that he could not say whether the suit property could not be divided by way of metes and bounds. He denied the suggestion that the site plan Ex. P-! was not correct as per the actual site. He denied the suggestions that Smt. Urmila had not been impleaded as a party in CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.43/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
the present suit as no relinquishment deed had been executed by her and Ex. PW-1/4 was got fraudulently executed by him. The plaintiff also denied the suggestion that the original relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2006, Mark X1 was with him. He also denied the suggestion that he received Rs. 3,000/- from all the defendants for drafting and executing the document Mark X1. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Thereafter, the cross- examination of the plaintiff by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 was completed.
58. On 04.12.2015, the plaintiff was re-called for his cross- examination by the ld. Counsel for defendant no.7, who was subsequently impleaded in the present suit. The plaintiff deposed that the document Ex. PW-1/D-7 X1 was signed by him at point A. He stated that he did not know who had signed on the document at point B. He stated that he knew Surinder Kumar Gupta, who had appeared as witness in this case. He deposed that he was not aware of the contents of the document when he signed the same. He stated that his brother had told him to sign it. He further stated that the defendant no.7 had come to his house for getting his signatures CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.44/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
on this document and did not know whether Surinder Kumar Gupta was present at this time. He stated that he did not remember the date, month or year of the execution of the document by him. He further deposed that he did not remember whether he had signed any other document at the instance of his brother and volunteered to state that his brother had got his signatures on blank papers, however could not remember how many blank papers he had signed or even whether he had signed 5, 10, 15, 20, 50 or 100 blank papers.
59. The plaintiff was next asked as to since when he along with his parents and siblings, excluding the defendant no.7, had been residing at the suit property, to which he stated that they had been residing in both the houses, however did not remember the exact periods. The plaintiff further stated that he had studied upto 9th class and was doing work as a contractor along with his father and brother. He stated that the business of contractorship was a joint business of the family and his father and brother were heading the same. He stated that he worked under them around fifteen years ago and since then he was not doing any business. He CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.45/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on this account.
60. The plaintiff further stated that his father expired in the year 1984. He stated that he did not have any ration card and had never drawn any ration from the fair price shop as well. He stated that he did not know whether his siblings, excluding the defendant no.7, had any ration card or not. He stated that he had a gas connection, however did not remember the name of the supplier company from whom connection had been taken at the address House No. 3-C/43, New Rohtak Road. He stated that he did not remember when this connection was installed at House No. 3- C/43, New Rohtak Road. He stated that House No. 3-C/43, New Rohtak Road was in the name of his wife. He denied the suggestion that this connection was never installed at the suit property and volunteered to state that it was initially installed at the suit property, however did not remember the time or period during which it was installed at the suit property. He further stated that he did not remember when the gas connection was shifted to the present address. He deposed that he had been residing at CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.46/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
House No. 3-C/43, New Rohtak Road since the last 10-15 years.
61. The plaintiff further stated that he was married on 27.04.1975 and four functions relating to his marriage namely ladies sangeet, mehndi and dance programmes took place at House no. 3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi and that his ghudchadi (bridegroom's procession) was performed at the suit property. He stated that he did not have his marriage card and all his three children had been born at the suit property. He stated that it was correct that the school records of his children shows the suit property as the address. He further stated that he did not know whether his other siblings were married at the suit property and could not tell whether their children were also born at the suit property or their address in the school records was also recorded as that of the suit property.
62. He further deposed that both his father and mother had expired while they were residing at the suit property. He stated that his parents had been residing at the suit property since 35-40 years from the year 1965. He stated that he did not know when the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.47/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
defendant no.7 got married or whether the defendant no.7 was married or not when their parents started residing at the suit property. He denied the suggestion that his parents and siblings, excluding the defendant no.7, had shifted to the suit property in the year 1960. He also denied the suggestion that the defendant no.7 separated from the family in the year 1960. He denied the suggestion that the defendant no.7 was residing in property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and volunteered to state that he was residing in the suit property as well.
63. The plaintiff further deposed that property no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was three and a half storeyed and denied the suggestion that it was not so. He stated that the ground floor of the house consisted of one room and a kitchen; the first floor comprised of a small room, verandah and a kitchen; the second floor also there was one room and a verandah and on the third floor there was a small kothri. However, he stated that he could not tell the size of the property. He stated that this house at Regharpura was never rented out and denied the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.48/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
suggestion that he was deposing falsely. The plaintiff further deposed that he had filed a suit against the defendant no.7 in the Tis Hazari Courts, in which the defendant no.1 was also a party and could not tell the suit number, or whether it was Suit No. 147/2010. He stated that he did not know whether the present defendant no.1 had filed any written statement to his plaint in the said suit or not. He further stated that he had not read the said written statement and his advocate might have read the same. He stated that he did not know whether he had filed any replication to the written statement of the defendant no.1 in the said case was filed by him or not. Thereafter, the further cross-examination of the plaintiff/PW-1 was deferred.
64. The plaintiff/PW-1 was further cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.7 on 26.05.2017, during which he stated that he did not have the original will of his mother Late Smt. Chameli Devi and volunteered to state that it must be with the defendant no.7 and further stated that the wills, documents of cancellation of the wills were with him as well. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on this aspect. He stated CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.49/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
that he did not remember since how long his mother or father had been residing in the suit property. He stated that he himself also did not remember since how long he had been residing at the suit property. He denied the suggestion that except the defendant no.7, all the other brothers including himself had been residing at the suit property. He volunteered to state that sometimes he was residing in the suit property and sometimes in the property at Regharpura. He denied the suggestion that only the defendant no.7 had been residing in the Regharpura property or that since 1960 no other brother had been residing at the Regharpura property. The plaintiff also denied the suggestion that his father had never executed any deed of cancellation dated 09.03.1984. He further stated that since the original deed of cancellation dated 09.03.1984 was with the defendant no.7, he could not produce the same. He denied the suggestion that the defendant no.7 was in not in possession of the cancellation deed or that no such deed had ever been executed by his father. However, he volunteered to state that it was a registered deed and the record from the Sub-Registrar had also been called for earlier.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.50/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
65. The plaintiff/PW-1 admitted as being correct that he had given a notice to the defendant no.7 on 20.12.2005, Ex. D-7/11, however did not know whether it was the first notice which he had sent to defendant no. 7. The plaintiff denied the suggestion that their father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had only executed his last will dated 30.05.1983 and no cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984 had been executed by him.
66. The plaintiff/PW-1 admitted that Sh. Narsingh Dass Agarwal was his brother-in-law, being the husband of his wife's sister. He also admitted that Sh. Narsingh Dass Agarwal had stood as witness to the execution of the document Ex. P-2/D3 to 6. He denied the suggestion that witness to the document Ex. P-2/D3 to 6 was a partner in his contract business. The plaintiff stated that he did not know about the business/work of Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta.
67. The plaintiff/PW-1 denied the suggestion that his father, during his lifetime, had given the property of Regharpura exclusively to the defendant no.7 in the year 1960 under a memo of declaration, the original of which was with him. The plaintiff CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.51/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
stated that no such document was executed or was in his possession and further stated that in the year 1960, he was aged only 10 years. The plaintiff also denied the suggestion that at the time of death of Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, he was living in old Rohtak Road property and all his articles and documents were taken by him.
68. The plaintiff further stated that the relinquishment deed must have been prepared by the defendant no. 8 herself and he did not know who got it prepared. He stated that the defendant no. 8 executed the relinquishment deed voluntarily. He admitted that on the relinquishment deed Ex.P5/D1, D3 to D6 his wife had signed as a witness. He admitted that this relinquishment deed also bore his signatures and of his brothers, however, it did not bear the signatures of the defendant no. 7 and volunteered to state that his photograph was pasted on it. He denied the suggestion that the relinquishment deed Ex.P5/D1, D3 to D6 was not prepared on the instructions of defendant no. 7. He further admitted that at the time of execution of the relinquishment deed Ex.P5/D1, D3 to D6, the defendant no. 7 was not present.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.52/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
69. The plaintiff/PW-1 admitted that he had been collecting rent of one portion of the property of old Rohtak Road, Delhi but did not remember since how long. He denied the suggestion that he had been collecting rent since the death of his father and volunteered to state that he had been collecting rent since 2-3 years prior only. He admitted that portion of the property was already let out when he took permission from the court by filing an application. He stated that even earlier he had sought permission from the court for letting out the property. He stated that since he had let out for the first time after taking permission of the Court, he never shared the rental income with the defendant no. 7 or any other brother. The plaintiff further stated that he could not specify who was the owner of the portion of old Rohtak Road property which he had let out. He stated that since he had spent money on maintaining the property, he had exclusive right to collect the rent. He stated that other occupants of the property had also let out their respective portions and were collecting rent. He stated that he never demanded any contribution from the defendant no. 7 regarding expenditure on maintenance of old Rohtak Road CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.53/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
property. He stated that there were four different portions of Old Rohtak Road property, all of which were in the possession of the four brothers or their families. He stated that he did not remember whether such arrangement was in existence since the death of his father. He further stated that he did not know who was paying the house tax or whether lease rent payment was being paid to the authorities in respect of old Rohtak Road property.
70. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Naresh Gupta had shifted to Rohini within his lifetime after locking his portion in the old Rohtak Road property. He stated that he could not understand the portion of Naresh Gupta in site plan Ex.P1/D3 to D6 as he did not get the same prepared. He further stated that no one was in possession of Naresh Gupta's portion after he shifted to Rohini. He denied the suggestion that later Naresh Gupta had let out his portion to some tenant. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta during his lifetime had given 3792, Regharpura exclusively to the defendant no. 7. He denied the suggestion that the suit property had been given to the other brothers including himself. He volunteered to state that infact his father had given CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.54/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
3792, Regharpura to the defendant no. 7 temporarily for his residence, but did not remember when it was given as he was aged only 10 years at that time. Thereafter, PW-1 was discharged as a witness.
Evidence of Sh. Ved Prakash Malhotra as PW-2 (witness to the Relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010,Ex. PW-1/3, executed by defendant no.7):
71. The plaintiff next examined Sh. Ved Prakash Malhotra as PW-2, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-2/X on 21.08.2012 in which he deposed that he had witnessed the relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010, Ex.P1/3, which bore his signatures at point A. He stated that the plaintiff and defendant no. 7 signed in his presence at points B and C along with another witness Sh. Surender Kumar Gupta at Point A. He further stated that before the Sub Registrar he affixed his signatures at point D and he identified the signatures of the plaintiff at point C, those of defendant no. 7 at point B and of witness Surender Kumar Gupta at point A. He identified the fingerprints of plaintiff at point Y and defendant no. 7 at point X. He also relied on the relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.55/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
executed by the defendant no.7, already tendered as Ex. PW-1/3.
72. PW-2 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 and defendants no. 3 to 6 on 21.08.2012 during which he stated that he was a typist by profession and carried out his work outside the office of the Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. He stated that he knew the plaintiff as he had typed affidavits on his behalf. He stated that the matter of the relinquishment deed was given to him by the defendant no. 7 which he then typed. On that date he did not type any other document for the plaintiff or the defendant no. 7. He stated that the relinquishment deed was typed by him on 25.02.2010 and it was registered on 26.02.2010. On 25.02.2010 only the defendant no. 7 had come to him for getting the relinquishment deed typed. He stated that he purchased the stamp papers on 25.02.2010 and typed the relinquishment deed thereon. He was requested by the defendant no. 7 to stand as witness and was paid Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,200/- for his services. He stated that he did not know what transpired between the plaintiff and defendant no. 7 and had been requested by the plaintiff to depose in the present case. He denied CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.56/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
the suggestion that he witnessed the relinquishment deed Ex.PW-1/3 at the instance of the plaintiff or that he was deposing in the present case at the instance of the plaintiff as well. He further stated that the witnessed the relinquishment deed before the Sub Registrar at which time the plaintiff, defendant no. 7 and Surender Kumar were present. Thereafter, the cross examination of PW-2 by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1, 3 to 6 was completed.
73. PW-2 was next cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 during which he stated that he knew the plaintiff since 1-1.5 months prior to execution of the relinquishment deed as he had come to him for getting some affidavit typed. He stated that he had never been to the house of either the plaintiff or defendant no. 7. He further stated that he stands as witness for any deed typed by him on request of the person at whose instance document is being typed and had stood as witness in about 70 documents till date. He stated that he had never been to the houses of such persons. He admitted that ID proof was required to stand as a witness which was carried by him every-day. Thereafter, PW-2 cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 was CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.57/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
completed.
74. PW-2 was next cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 7 on 05.10.2015 during which he stated that his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/X was prepared at Asaf Ali Road and on interjection by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff again stated that it was prepared at the High Court. He clarified that the relinquishment deed was prepared at Asaf Ali Road and the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/X was prepared at the High Court. He further stated that Ex.PW-2/X was prepared on his instructions and stated that Ex.PW-1/3 was not 'told' by him and he had seen the original document at the time of preparation of the affidavit. At this stage, the plaintiff produced the original relinquishment deed which was not in the court record and PW-2 stated that he had seen this document at the time of preparation of Ex.PW-2/X. The witness further admitted that the original relinquishment deed was not marked as Ex.P1/3 anywhere. He denied the suggestion that the said document was marked only on 13.08.2012 and not on 16.04.2012. Thereafter, his cross examination by defendant no. 7 was completed. PW-2 was not CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.58/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
cross examined by defendant no. 8 despite opportunity given. Evidence of the wife of the plaintiff, Smt. Vijaya Gupta as PW-3 (witness to the Relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 ,Ex. PW-1/4, executed by the defendant no.9):
75. Smt. Vijaya Gupta, wife of the plaintiff, was examined as PW-3 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.
PW-3/X on 21.08.2012, in which she deposed that the defendant no. 9 Smt. Urmila was the daughter of her maternal aunt i.e. Smt. Rajdulari Devi and was known to her. She stated that she was the witness to the relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010, registered on 27.01.2010, executed by the defendant no.9, Ex.PW-1/4. She identified the signatures of defendant no. 9 at point A on each page and those of the plaintiff at Point B. She identified her signatures at point C and those of the other witness Smt. Anu Gupta at point D. She deposed that the defendant no. 9 executed Ex.PW-1/4 voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion and in sound disposing mind, in her presence.
76. During her cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.59/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
defendants no. 1,3 to 6 on 21.08.2012 she deposed that she was matriculate and could read and write a little bit of English. She denied the suggestion that a compromise had been effected between her husband/plaintiff and the defendant no. 7 with respect to property no. 3792, Regharpura, Delhi in lieu of which defendant no. 7 had executed relinquishment deed in favour of her husband. She stated that she had good relations with the defendant no. 9, however, did not know if defendant no. 9 had executed any document with respect to any of the properties. She stated that relinquishment deed was executed by defendant no. 9 on 27.01.2010. She stated that at present relations between the brothers of her husband were not good. She stated that her relation with defendant no. 8 was also not good. She denied the suggestion that she was not enjoying good relations with the defendant no. 9 as well. She stated that the relinquishment deed was typed in her presence and registered at Asaf Ali Road and she signed on the same on the day it was typed. However, could not say who had typed it. She stated that she could not remember how many persons were present when she signed the relinquishment deed Ex.PW-1/4. Then again stated that at that time she along with her husband, Anu CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.60/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
daughter-in-law and the defendant no. 9 were present. She stated that defendant no. 9 was married at the time of execution of Ex.PW-1/4 and had come alone from Muzaffar Nagar, U.P a day prior to the execution of the document. She stated that she could not identify that who had typed the document and stamp paper was purchased by defendant no. 9. He further stated that Ex.PW-1/4 was signed by defendant no. 9 first but did not remember who signed thereafter and in what order. She denied the suggestion that Ex.PW-1/4 was signed at her house or that defendant no. 9 did not sign the same voluntarily. She also denied the suggestion that on 15.06.2005 defendant no. 9 had already released her share in the suit property in favour of all her maternal aunts equally. She also denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely. Thereafter, her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1,3 to 6 was completed.
77. PW-3 was next cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2, during which she stated that she did not remember how many relinquishment deeds were signed by her. She stated that she did not remember if she had signed any relinquishment CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.61/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
deed on 15.06.2005. She denied the suggestion that she had signed relinquishment deed Ex.PW-1/4 at her husband's instance. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely. Thereafter, her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 2 was completed.
78. PW-3 was next cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 7 on 04.12.2015 during which she stated that Ex.PW-3/X bore her signatures, however, she did not know who got the same prepared or at whose instance she had signed the same. She stated that she did not know English, however, contents of the affidavit were explained to her by the advocate. She denied the suggestion that she had signed it without knowing and understanding its contents. She stated that Ex.PW-3/X had already been prepared when she met the advocate and she signed on the same. Thereafter, her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 7 was completed.
79. PW-3 was next cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 8 on 04.12.2015 during which she stated that she did CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.62/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
not know the nature of the document and that the contents of Ex.PW-3/X had been explained in Hindi to her at the time of signing. She stated that she did not remember the contents of the document Ex.PW-1/4 and did not remember whether she had seen any other document before signing Ex.PW-3/X. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of the plaintiff. Thereafter, her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 8 was completed.
Evidence of Sh. Surender Kumar Gupta as PW-4 (witness to the relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 executed by defendant no.7, Ex. PW-1/3):
80. Sh. Surender Kumar Gupta was next examined as PW-4, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-4/X on 21.08.2012 in which he stated that he had witnessed the relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010, Ex.P1/3 and signed as witness at point A. He stated that plaintiff and defendant no. 7 had also signed in his presence at points C and B respectively. Further, witness Ved Prakash Malhotra had signed at point D. He stated that defendant no. 7 had executed the document in sound disposing mind, and thereafter, all parties had appeared before the Sub CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.63/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Registrar III, New Delhi. He stated that before the Sub Registrar, his thumb impression and signatures were affixed at point A. The signatures of the defendant no. 7 were at point B, those of the plaintiff at point C and witness V.P Malhotra at point D. He stated that fingerprints of plaintiff were at point Y and defendant no. 7 at point X.
81. PW-4 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1,3 to 6 on 21.08.2012 during which he deposed that he knew plaintiff and defendant no. 7 since childhood, having family relations with both. He stated that he did not know if any family settlement was reached between the plaintiff and defendant no. 7. He stated that he was a govt. civil contractor and the plaintiff was also a contractor, but did not know of what nature. He stated that he had never given any tender together with the plaintiff. He stated that the relinquishment deed Ex.PW-1/3 had not been typed in his presence and he had been requested by the defendant no. 7 to witness the same. He stated that he had signed the document after going through it and did not know if it was typed on the same day of its registration. He stated that his relations with the other CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.64/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
brothers of the plaintiff was normal. He deposed that defendant no. 7 had executed the relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff as there was some account of jewelry etc, as told to him by the defendant no. 7. He stated that defendant no. 7 did not tell him as to what jewelery was to given and to whom. He further stated that he did not talk about the relinquishment deed with any other brother nor anyone else had asked him regarding the same. He further stated that he could not say who had first signed the document Ex.PW-1/3 and that he had signed at two places on the document at the same time. He further deposed that he had stepped into the witness box at the request of the plaintiff. He stated that he did not inform defendant no. 7 that he was going to depose today as he did not think it necessary. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the plaintiff. Thereafter, his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1, 3 to 6 was completed.
82. PW-4 was then cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 during which he denied the suggestion that he had signed Ex.PW-1/3 at the instance of the plaintiff. The defendant CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.65/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
no. 2 adopted the cross examination of PW-2 as conducted by ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1,3 to 6.
83. PW-4 was then cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 7 on 01.07.2015 during which he deposed that he was a childhood friend of the plaintiff. At present the plaintiff was residing at block C, opposite Liberty Cinema, New Rohtak Road and earlier plaintiff was residing at the suit property since 1967. He stated that plaintiff's father had built the house in 1950 and was residing at the same since then along with plaintiff, defendant no. 1, late Naresh Kumar and defendant no. 9. He stated that the defendant no. 7 was residing at Regharpura, Karol Bagh and he had visited him at his house on the occasion of his daughter's marriage. He stated that the plaintiff, his sister/defendant no. 8 and Naresh Gupta were residing at the suit property at the time of their respective marriages. However, Late Naresh Gupta shifted to Rohini 4-5 years prior to his death. He stated that the marriage of plaintiff and defendant no. 1's children took place while they were residing at the suit property. He stated that parents of the plaintiff expired while living at the suit property. CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.66/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
84. He further stated that he had no business relationship with the plaintiff. That he did not know where the relinquishment deed was typed and who got it prepared. That he was telephonically informed by the defendant no. 7 to reach Asaf Ali Road to witness the relinquishment deed. He stated that he did not orally remember phone number of defendant no. 7, but it was recorded in his diary. He stated that defendant no. 7 used to take him along to visit DDA office for conversion of his house to freehold. He stated that he did not remember the time allotted by the Sub Registrar for registration and that plaintiff and defendant no. 7 were already present when he reached. He stated that he signed in the presence of Sub Registrar and denied the suggestion that he had witnessed the relinquishment deed at the instance of the plaintiff. He admitted that he did not know the circumstances under which the relinquishment deed was executed. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the plaintiff. Thereafter, he was discharged as a witness. No cross examination was conducted by the defendant no. 8 despite opportunity given. CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.67/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Evidence of Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta as PW-5 (witness to the cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984 executed by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, Ex. P2/D3 to D6):
85. Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta was examined as PW-5, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-5/X on 03.09.2012, in which he stated that he was known to Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and he had witnessed deed of cancellation of Will dated 09.03.1984, Ex.P2/D3 to D6, which bore his signatures at point A. He identified the signatures of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta at point B and signatures of Sh. Narsingh Das Aggarwal at point C. He stated that all parties had signed in each others presence and had later appeared before the Sub Registrar at which time he placed his signatures and thumb impressions at point A. Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta put his signatures and thumb impressions at point B and Sh. Narsingh Das Aggarwal put his signatures and thumb impressions at point C. He stated that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was of sound disposing mind at the time of execution of deed of cancellation of Will and same was executed by him voluntarily and without any pressure.
86. PW-5 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.68/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
defendant no. 1, 3 to 6 and defendant no. 2 despite opportunity given.
87. Sh. S.K Sharma, LDC, office of Sub Registrar III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi was examined as summoned witness PW-6 on 05.10.2015, who produced the summoned record, i.e. deed of cancellation of Will dated 09.03.1984 and affirmed that certified copy of the same, Ex.P2/D3 to D6 had been issued by their office and the document had also been registered at page no. 49.
88. PW-6 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 7, during which he stated that he was not present at the time of registration of the document. Further, the certificate of presentation of this deed did not bear the signatures of the concerned Sub Registrar and only recorded "SD/-JPS Kataria, Sub Registrar New Delhi" and was dated 09.03.1984. He could not say in whose handwriting entries at point B were made. He admitted that Chander Bhan had not been identified by anyone. He further stated that under the signatures and thumb impression of Chander Bhan, there was a stamp to the effect that execution is admitted by CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.69/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
him and he was identified by Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta and Sh. Narsingh Das Aggarwal. He admitted that certificate did not bear the signatures of Sub Registrar, and it only recorded "SD/-JPS Kataria, Sub Registrar New Delhi". He could not say in whose handwriting the certificate was written. Thereafter, he was discharged as a witness on behalf of defendant no. 7. No cross examination was conducted by defendant no. 8 despite opportunity given.
89. On 26.05.2017, the plaintiff closed his evidence in the present suit.
Evidence adduced by the Defendants Evidence led by defendants no. 2 to 6.
Evidence of the defendant no.9 as witness DW2-6/1:
90. The defendant no. 9/Smt. Urmila stepped into the witness box as DW2-6/1 and was examined-in-chief on 19.09.2012 in which she stated that plaintiff was her mama (maternal uncle) and they comprised of five brothers and two sisters. She relied upon her voter ID and ration card copy as Ex.D1/D2-6/1 (OSR) and CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.70/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Ex.D2/D2-6/2 (OSR). She stated that she had studied only up to 3rd or 4th class and did not know English language. She stated that her mother's name was Rajdulari. She stated that she did not know if there was any talk of partition of the property of her maternal uncles.
91. She further stated that she did not execute any document in favour of her maternal uncles. She stated that they had visited Muzaffarnagar about four to five years ago when her father was alive. She denied executing any document. She stated that her maternal uncles took her to the court for her signatures telling her that all the maternal uncles had settled their disputes and she should sign thereon. She stated that she came to Delhi about two years thereafter. The plaintiff had taken her alone to the court and asked her to make a statement that "he is all in all", which she made and signed a document. She stated that the relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 Ex. PW-1/4 bore her signatures and thumb impressions, however, categorically deposed that she did not know the contents of Ex.PW-1/4 and could not even read the same. She stated that she did not want any share in the suit property and CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.71/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
wished for her share to be divided amongst all five maternal uncles. She denied executing any documents to the effect that her share should be given to all her five maternal uncles or only to the plaintiff.
92. The defendant no. 9/DW-2-6/1 was cross examined by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 19.09.2012 during which he stated that her mami was not present at the time of execution and registration of Ex.PW-1/4 . She stated that she had come from Muzaffarnagar and stayed at the plaintiff's house for 4-5 days and Ex.PW-1/4 was executed a day after she had arrived from Muzaffarnagar. She stated that her other maternal uncles were also residing in the same building as the plaintiff and had met all of them and their families during her stay. She stated that she did not disclosed to them the purpose of her visit or the execution of Ex.PW-1/4. She stated that it was correct that at that time she mentioned in the document that her share in the property was to be given to the plaintiff and volunteered to state that "but now I want to give it to all my maternal uncles". She denied the suggestion that Vijay Gupta and Annu Gupta were also present at the time of execution of CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.72/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Ex.PW-1/4. She stated that she had come to depose at the instance of defendant no. 1.
93. Sh. Devender Kumar, husband of defendant no. 9 was examined as DW-2-6/2. In his examination in chief recorded on 19.09.2012 he stated that he had studied up to class V and plaintiff was maternal uncle of his wife. He stated that about 5-6 years back the maternal uncles of his wife had visited his house at Muzaffarnagar, with respect to division of property and share of his wife. He stated that his father in law had also accompanied at that time. He stated that share of his wife was divided amongst all the maternal uncles and a document (Waseeyat) Mark X1 was also executed which was signed by him. He stated that original of Mark X1 had been brought by his father in law and the plaintiff. He further stated that at the time of execution of Mark X1 only his father in law, plaintiff and a child had visited Muzaffarnagar and not all the maternal uncles as stated by him earlier. He further stated that in the year 2010, the plaintiff and his wife also visited his house and the plaintiff had informed "matter had been sorted out among all brothers" and his wife was required to sign on CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.73/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
documents. He further stated that on coming to know that vide Ex.PW-1/4 his wife's share had been relinquished only in the favour of plaintiff, he objected to the same on telephone to the plaintiff.
94. During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, he stated that he had visited the suit property about 20-30 years ago on the marriage of maternal aunt of his wife. He further stated that in the year 2010 his wife had visited Delhi only for a day and had come back the next day. He stated that his wife met the plaintiff and her maternal uncle who was living at Pitampura. He stated that he had spoken with his wife on telephone while she was in Delhi. He stated that he told all the maternal uncles of his wife about the execution of Ex.PW-1/4 by his wife. He stated that neither him nor his wife took any action with respect to execution of Ex.PW-1/4 except informing all the maternal uncles. He stated that he had come to depose at the instance of the defendants. Evidence of Sh. Ankur Gupta, defendant no.5 as witness no. DW2- 6/3:
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.74/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
95. The defendant no. 5 Sh. Ankur Gupta was examined as DW-2-6/3, he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.D3 in which he stated that late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta executed a Will dated 30.05.1983 and later cancelled the same on 09.03.1984 and expired intestate on 15.07.1984.
96. He further deposed that Smt. Rajdulari expired on 05.05.1991. Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta expired on 23.05.2005. He stated that the defendant no. 9 Urmila wife of Devender had executed a relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 at Muzaffarnagar, U.P in favour of legal heirs of late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. The photocopy of the relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 was relied upon as Mark X1. He further stated that the defendant no. 9 Smt. Urmil Singhal had executed a relinquishment deed on 13.07.2005 in favour of all the legal heirs of late Chander Bhan Gupta. He stated that defendant no. 9 never executed relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 at Delhi in favour of the plaintiff. He stated that defendant no. 7 also did not execute any relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 in favour of the plaintiff. He stated that the suit property is ancestral in nature and all legal CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.75/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
heirs had equal share.
97. The defendant no. 5, Sh. Ankur Gupta, DW-2-6/3 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff during which he stated that he did not know if Smt. Urmila/defendant no. 9 who had deposed on the same day had stated that she had come to Delhi on 27.01.2010. He stated that he knew English language. He stated that he also did not know if Smt. Urmila/defendant no. 9 had executed PW-1/4 in favour of the plaintiff on 27.01.2010. He stated that he was aware of contents of para no. 7 of his affidavit and at the time of swearing of the affidavit he was aware of existence of Ex.PW-1/4. The witness was then specifically questioned by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as to why he had deposed in para no. 7 of his affidavit that relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 was fabricated, to which he replied that he did not know what he had written in para no. 7 of his affidavit as he was 12th fail. He stated that he had not seen the relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 executed by defendant no. 7 even after filing of the present case. He stated that he could not identify the signatures of defendant no. 7. He admitted that his deposition to CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.76/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
the effect that relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 was not executed by defendant no. 7 was solely based on information told to him by defendant no. 7 in March 2011.
98. He further stated that he had not gone to Muzaffarnagar to bring the defendant no. 9 and her husband for deposing in the present suit and that they had been brought by his brother/defendant no. 4. He denied the suggestion that defendant no. 9 never executed relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 or that relinquishment deeds Ex.PW-1/3 and Ex.PW-1/4 had been executed by defendants no. 7 and 9 voluntarily and validly.
99. The other defendants no.2, 3, 4 and 6 did not examine themselves as witnesses.
Evidence led by the defendant no.1 Evidence of Sh. Mohan Dass Gupta, defendant no.1 as DW-4
100. The defendant no. 1 Sh. Mohan Dass Gupta stepped into the witness box as DW-4 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-4/A on 05.10.2012 in which he stated that his CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.77/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
mother Late Smt. Chameli Devi had executed a will dated 20.10.1979 in favour of his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, by way of which his father was bequeathed the suit property. Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta then executed a will dated 30.05.1983 with respect to his properties in favour of his sons, which was registered as document no.1505 in book no.3, Vol no.244 on pages 3 to 6 with the Sub-Registrar III, Delhi. He further stated that his father cancelled the said will by way of a registered cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984. Further, that defendant no.8 had executed a relinquishment deed dated 11.07.2005 at Delhi in favour of her five brothers. That he came to know of the execution of the relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 by the defendant no.9 only after receiving notice of the other case filed in the Court of Sh. Pitamber Dutt, Ld. ADJ Delhi. He stated that he asked about the same from the defendant no.9 on telephone, who told him that she had executed it at the instance of the plaintiff, however she was not willing to relinquish her share in favour of the plaintiff and wanted to relinquish it in favour of her five maternal uncles. He further stated that he got to know of the execution of the relinquishment deed executed by the defendant no.7 only after CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.78/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
receiving the notice of the present suit. The defendant no.1 further stated that he was entitled to share in the suit property, as well as property no. 3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005.
101. The defendant no.1/DW-4 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 05.10.2012, during which he was confronted with para no.5J of the preliminary objections of the written statement filed by him and para no.4 of Ex. DW-4/A in which the date of the relinquishment deed executed by the defendant no.9 was written as 15.06.2005 and 11.07.2005 respectively and asked which date was correct, to which he replied that both dates were correct as the relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 had been executed by the defendant no.9 and relinquishment deed dated 11.07.2005 had been executed executed by the defendant no.8. He further stated that he did not have the original of the relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 executed by the defendant no.9 and volunteered to state that the original document was with the plaintiff. He admitted that the relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 was not executed in his CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.79/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
presence and he had not signed the same as well and he did not know where it was executed. He denied the suggestion that no such relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 had been executed by the defendant no.9. He stated that presently he was aware that the defendant no.9 had executed a relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 in favour of the plaintiff. However, stated that it had been executed forcefully. He stated that he had challenged the same in any other proceeding, except the present one. He denied the suggestion that the defendant no.9 had executed relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 voluntarily. Thereafter, his cross-examination by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff was completed.
Evidence led by the defendant no.2 Evidence of the Smt. Neeru Gupta, wife of the defendant no.2 as DW-5
102. The wife of the defendant no.2, Smt. Neeru Gupta stepped into the witness box as DW-5 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-5/A, in which she deposed that her husband was a patient of Schizophrenia for the last 30 years and was a CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.80/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
mentally disabled person to the extent of 71%. She stated that the suit property was not capable of being divided by way of metes and bounds. That the site plan of the plaintiff was incorrect and not as per the actual situation. That the market value of the suit property was more than 10 crores. She further deposed that the defendant no.9 never executed any relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 and that the plaintiff had obtained her signatures and thumb impression by playing fraud.
103. The defendant no.5 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 05.10.2012, during which she denied the suggestion that the defendant no.2 was not suffering from any mental disorder. She further stated that she had seen the signatures of her husband on the written statement and the supporting verification and affidavit and vakalatnama. She denied the suggestion that the suit property was capable of being divided by way of metes and bounds. She also denied the suggestion that the site plan filed was correct. She stated that she had seen Ex. PW/D3
-6 and could state which part was incorrect. She stated that she did not know the value of the suit property as on date. She denied the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.81/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
suggestions that the defendant no.9 had validly executed the relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010.
Evidence led by the defendant no.7 Evidence of Sh. Ashwini Kumar Gupta, son of the defendant no.7 as D7W1.
104. Sh. Ashwini Kumar Gupta, son of the defendant no.7 examined himself as D7W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. DW-71/A on 18.07.2017, in which he stated that he was the son of the deceased defendant no.7. He stated that his father/defendant no.7 was the exclusive owner of property no.3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and had exercised his rights of exclusive ownership since 1960 after Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had settled and given this property to his father by way of a family settlement/partition. He further stated that this fact was known to the plaintiff and other legal heirs of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as well, which was never challenged till the year 2010. He further stated that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was the owner of several properties, and he had settled his properties along with those of his wife Smt. Chameli Devi within CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.82/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
his lifetime. Under the said settlement, Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta gave the defendant no.7 the property of property no.3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which had bene under his exclusive possession since the year 1960. The house-tax, lease money and other expenses of the property had also been paid by his father. At the same time of the settlement, Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta also gave another property in Gali no. 49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to his son Trilok Chand Gupta, who expired during his lifetime. Similarly, the suit property was given to the plaintiff, defendant no.1, Naresh Kumar and one share in it was kept by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta with himself. Further, although the suit property was in his grandmother Late Smt. Chameli Devi's name, it actually belonged to his grandfather Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, who had purchased it for the family. On account of the said settlement, no party ever set up any title in property no. 3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
105. The DW-7 further deposed that his father had also got the said Regharpura property vacated from tenants, and lived there CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.83/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
exclusively with his family, till he shifted to Vaishali in 1987 and still retained his possession even after that. He stated that ever since the year 1960, the other sons and daughter of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta lived at the suit property. Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and Late Smt. Chameli Devi also expired at the suit property and the plaintiff had retained all the documents and belongings of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta on his death. Ever since the settlement, neither the plaintiff, nor any other party had been in possession of property no. 3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
106. He further stated that Late Smt. Chameli Devi had executed a will dated 20.10.1979 in favour of her husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and had bequeathed the suit property to him. The original will was in the possession of the plaintiff. Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta further executed a will dated 30.05,1983, which was got drafted by an Advocate Sh. Bal Mukand Gupta. Further, the plaintiff had never shared the rental income of the suit property with his father, although portions of the suit property had been earning about Rs. 30,000/- as rent at the time of the death of CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.84/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta.
107. That the plaintiff had issued a false legal notice dated 20.12.2005, which was replied by his father, to which the plaintiff sent no reply, thereby accepting it's correctness. Further, no suit was also filed by anyone till the year 2010. Further, that his father had been impleaded at the stage of final arguments by the plaintiff.
108. The witness DW-7 further deposed that the plaintiff had also executed an affidavit in the month of March, 2010, admitting the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as his last Will and also stated that he had no objection if the property no. 3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi is mutated in the name of the defendant no.7. The plaintiff retained the original affidavit on pretext of attestation and only a photocopy was handed over to the defendant no.7.
109. He further deposed that his father/defendant no.7 had sold CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.85/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
the property to Sanjay and Arti Gupta, who later on the instigation of the plaintiff, re-sold the property back to his father by way of a registered sale deed.
110. The witness further deposed that on the strength of the will dated 30.05.1983, the plaintiff got his father/defendant no.7 to execute a relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010, with respect to his share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. He further stated that in case the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was set aside, all his properties were liable to partitioned amongst the legal heirs.
111. He further deposed that the plaintiff was also instrumental in helping his father/defendant no.7 in selling the property no. 3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to one Ramesh Kumar, and also signed the agreement as a witness, which is already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D7/X1. However, after the said deal could not fructify, the original agreement was destroyed and a fresh sale agreement was entered into to sell the property to Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.86/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
112. He further stated that the original will dated 30.05.1983 had also been retained by the plaintiff and given to his father only on the execution of the relinquishment deed. Further a panchnama was also executed by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, confirming the settlement, which had been retained by the plaintiff.
113. He further stated that the suit property had already been divided after the death of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, all of whom were in possession of their respective portions. He stated that the will dated 30.05.1983 was the last will of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, which had never been cancelled or revoked by him. Further the witnesses to the cancellation deed of will were his saadu Narsingh Dass Agarwal and his business partner Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta.
114. The witness DW-7 relied on the following documents in support of his case:
(a) Certified copy of the plaint in suit no. 147/2010 CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.87/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
as Ex. D7/1.
(b) Certified copy of the evidence by way of affidavit of the plaintiff and his cross-examination as Ex. D7/2.
(c) Certified copy of the statement of the plaintiff's witness Sh. Surjan Singh as Ex. D7/4.
(d) Certified copy of the written statement cum counter claim with supporting affidavit as Ex. D7/5.
(e) Certified copy of the earlier notice under Order 12 CPC served on the plaintiff as Ex. D7/8.
(f) Certified copy of the will dated 10.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as Ex. D7/9.
(g) Certified copy of the reply dated 17.01.2006 sent by the defendant no.7, through his counsel as Ex. D7/10.
(h) Certified copy of the notice dated 20.12.2005 sent by the plaintiff and others as Ex. D7/11.
(i) Certified copy of the affidavit earlier proved in suit no. 147/2010 as Ex.DW1/1.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.88/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
(j) Original sale agreement as Ex. PW1/D-7/X1, signed by the plaintiff at point A.
(k) Photocopy of sale agreement as Ex. DW-7/2, witnesses by the plaintiff at point B.
115. The ld. Counsel for the plaintiff took the objection that the documents Ex. D7/1, Ex. D7/2, Ex. D7/4, Ex. D7/5 and Ex. D7/8 were not part of the evidence by way of affidavit, which was directed to be considered at the time of final appreciation of evidence by the Ld. Predecessor of thi Court.
116. The witness D7W1 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on. 21.07.2017, during which he stated that his grandmother Late Smt. Chameli Devi had executed a will, however he had not seen the original and could not state whether Mark A was a copy of the said will. He affirmed that Mark B was the correct copy of the will dated 30.05.1983 executed by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. He stated that he did not know whether his father had executed any relinquishment deed with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. He affirmed that in para no.11 of his evidence by way of affidavit, he had stated that his CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.89/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
father had executed a relinquishment deed with respect to the suit property. He stated that he had seen the relinquishment deed, Ex. PW-1/3 and he identified the photograph of his father at Mark X and photograph of the plaintiff at point 9. He also identified the signatures of his father on the relinquishment deed. He admitted that he and his father had never filed any suit till date challenging the relinquishment deed, Ex. PW-1/3. He further admitted that he could not show any document of transfer of property no. 3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in favour of his father and volunteered to state that all such documents were in the possession of the plaintiff.
117. The witness DW-7 denied that the suggestion that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had cancelled his will dated 30.05.1983 vide a cancellation deed dated 09.03.1983, Ex. P2/D3 to D6. He admitted that his grandfather Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had not given any share in property of Rohtak Road. He denied the suggestion that since the will dated 30.05.1983 was revoked, therefore his father had executed the relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010, Ex. PW-1/3.He denied the suggestion that the suit no. CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.90/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
147/2010 had nothing to do with the present suit property or that he had concealed the fact of the revocation of the will dated 30.05.1983, vide the revocation deed dated 09.03.1984, Ex. P2/D3 to D6.
118. Thereafter, the defendant no.7 closed his evidence on 21.07.2017 and the matter proceeded towards the final arguments on behalf of the parties.
Arguments of the parties
119. Sh. S.C Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff has duly proved the cancellation of the Will of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and has also proved the relinquishment deeds executed with respect to the suit property, hence, the suit be decreed as prayed for.
120. Sh. R.S Kela, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 7 has argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove the cancellation of the Will of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and in view of the same the relinquishment deeds executed by the defendant no. 7 to 9 are inconsequential.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.91/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Issue-wise finding and reasons Issues no 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
121. I shall first decide issues no.1,3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 together, being connected issues, which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for taking partition and if so to what extent the plaintiff is entitled to the share of the suit property? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without cause of action in the present form? OPD
5. To what share, if any, and in which of the properties, are the parties entitled to partition? OPP/OPD
6. Whether late Mr. Chander Bhan Gupta had cancelled or revoked the Will dated 30th May, 1983 registered on 2nd June, 1983? If so, its effect? OPP
7. Whether the Relinquishment Deed dated 28 th February, 2010 is not enforceable against the defendant no.7? OPD7
8. Whether the Relinquishment Deed dated 13 th July, 2005 executed by defendant No.8 is forged? OPD8
122. It is an admitted case of the parties that Late Smt. Chameli Devi was the owner of the suit property, i.e. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.92/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
123. Further, it is also an admitted fact by all parties that Late Smt. Chameli Devi had executed a will dated 20.10.1979 in favour of her husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. The plaintiff has placed on record a photocopy of the said will dated 20.10.1979 executed by Late Smt. Chameli Devi as Mark A, which is reproduced below:
MARK-A Will dated 20.10.1979 of Late Smt. Chameli Devi ***
-W I L L-
This is the last WILL of me, Shrimati Chameli Devi, Wife of Shri Chander Bhan Gupta, Resident of 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5, age about 60 years, I have not made any WILL previously and in case any WILL or Codicil is found to be in existence of any date prior to today, the 20th October, 1979, the same are hereby revoked and the same shall be considered as null and void.
The Property bearing Municipal No. 9569, Ward XVI, built upon lease
- hold, Plot of Land No. 40, Book 5-C, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, stands in my name in the Records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as well as in the Records of the Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi as owner and lessee respectively. The finances for this property were provided by my husband Shri Chander Bhan Gupta, who is also assessed in the Income Tax Department with respect to the Income derived from this property.
I bequeath and devise the above mentioned property House No. 5C/40, (bearing Municipal Number 9569- Ward XVI) New Rohtak Road, (Guru Goind Singh Marg) Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5, as well as all other properties, moveable and immoveable, whatsoever and wheresoever existing at the time of my death, to CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.93/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
my husband Shri Chander Bhan Gupta, absolutely and for ever. He would hold all my properties as full owner.
That I shall use and enjoy my properties, moveable and immoveable, cash and ornaments and may to whatever like with the same during my life time and after my death the same shall go in the manner mentioned herein above.
I say that 1 am in possession of perfect health and sense fully and completely and I have made this WILL of my own free will and without pressure from any quarter. This WILL of mine has been prepared by Shri Bal Mukund Gupta, Advocate, Delhi, at my request and in accordance my desire and directions. He has explained the contents of the WILL to me and I have put my thumb impression on this WILL of mine on this 20 day of October 1979, in the presence of witnesses, who also have signed the same in my presence and in the presence of each other at Delhi. This WILL contains Two pages and I have put my thumb impression on each page.
(Left Thumb Index) (Chameli Devi) Testator We, the witnesses to this WILL certify that the testator Shrimati Chameli Devi, Wife of Shri Chander Bhan Gupta, has put her thumb impression in our possession in our presence and we have signed the same in the presence of the Testator as attesting witnesses. This WILL has been read over and explained to the Testator who admitted the contents to be correct.
Sd/- Sd/-
Witnesses Witnesses
This Will has been drafted by me at the request and in accordance with the directions and wishes of the Testator, Shrimati Chameli Devi, who has put her thumb impression in my presence after admitting the correctness of the contents, which have been explained to her by me.
Delhi CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.94/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
20-10-1979 Sd/-
(Bal Mukund Gupta) Advocate 65/9, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5.
***
124. It is also not in dispute that Late Smt. Chameli Devi had pre-deceased her husband and expired on 06.01.1980. Although the defendant no.1 has set up a case in his written statement that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had settled the properties by way of an oral partition in the year 1960 itself, no specific date or further details of this alleged oral partition have been mentioned in the written statement by the defendant no.1. Further, during the cross- examination of the plaintiff/PW-1 dated 13.08.2012, the defendant no.1 did not even give any suggestion to him that an oral partition had taken place in the year 1960 and instead gave the suggestion, which was not mentioned in his written statement, that the defendant no.7 had reduced into writing a family settlement dated 23.01.1967 amongst all the legal heirs of their father. The said plea of oral partition was also completely abandoned by the defendant no.1 when he stepped into the witness box as DW-4. In his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-4/A, tendered in evidence CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.95/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
on 05.10.2012, there is no mention of any oral settlement of the year 1960 or any written family settlement deed dated 23.01.1967. Hence, on account of the shifting stands taken by the defendant no.1, he has failed to prove that there was any oral settlement of the properties by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta in the year 1960.
125. In view of the above, it also stands proved that after the death of Late Smt. Chameli Devi on 06.01.1980, Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta became the owner of the suit property by virtue of her will dated 20.10.1979.
126. Further, it is also an admitted by all parties that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had executed a will dated 30.05.1983. The plaintiff has placed on record a photocopy of the said will dated 30.05.1983 as Mark B, the contents of which are reproduced below:
MARK-B Will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta *** WILL I, Chander Bhan Gupta, son of Late Shri Shambhoo Dayal, age about 70 years, resident of House No. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005, do hereby make my this last WILL at CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.96/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Delhi, on this the 30th day of May, 1983, while I am in prefect health and in possession of sound disposing mind. This WILL is being made without any pressure or coercion from anybody. Prior to today I have not made any WILL. In case any WILL is set up or found to have been executed by me of the date prior to day, the same shall be deemed to have been executed by me of the date prior to today, the same shall be deemed to have been revoked, set aside and of no consequence. That the property bearing No. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road (Guru Gobind Singh Marg) New Delhi - 110005, which is a 2½ storeyed building built by me from my own self earned finance and in the Income-Tax Department, the income etc. of this property is assessed in my name as it is considered to be my property. That, however, the said property was built by me as mentioned hereinabove with my own finances and self earned money. However, it was built in the name of my wife late Shrimati Chameli Devi and, therefore, it stands in the records of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and DDA in the name of my wife late Shrimati Chameli Devi.
That late Smt. Chameli Devi, my wife, had executed a WILL dated 20th October, 1979, whereby this property was left to me absolutely and thus in this manner I am the full owner of the property bearing No. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, and am entitled to dispose of the same in the manner that I like.
I have four living sons (1) Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, (2) Shri Mohan Dass Gupta, (3) Shri Ram Kishore Gupta and (4) Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta.
I have also one grand son Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, son of late Shri Trilok Chand.
I have two daughters (i) Smt. Raj Dulari and (ii) Smt. Urmila Gupta. Both of my daughters are married and are very happily settled and whatever I wanted to give to them, has already been given to them.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.97/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
I devise and bequeath my aforesaid property 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi - 110005, as under: -
(A). I say that after my death the ground floor of the property shall go to my grand son Vinod Kumar Gupta, and my son Shri Ram Kishore Gupta. Vinod Kumar Gupta shall have left side wing, including store, of the ground floor while Shri Ram Kishore Gupta, my son, shall have right side wing, including the store of the ground floor;
(B). I say that the first floor and the barsati floor shall go to my son Mohan Dass and Naresh Kumar as under: -
(i) Right side wing shall go to Mohan Dass Gupta;
(ii) Left side wing including mazanine floor and a Kolki under the staircase on the ground floor shall go to Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta.
They shall also be entitled to the open space on the barsati floor, now lying un-built, in front of their sides and if they wish they may cause construction on their respective sides.
I have already given one house bearing No. 3792, Gali No. 20, Rehgarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005, to my son Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta and thus he shall have no share, right, title or interest in my property No. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005.
That S/Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Ram Kishore Gupta, Mohan Dass Gupta and Naresh Kumar Gupta will be liable to pay the house - tax and lease money in equal shares as long as their respective portions are not entered in their respective names in the records of the Civic Authorities.
I do hereby further say that whatever moveable property I may be in possession of at the time of my death and which has not been disposed of hereinbefore, shall be disposed of by my eldest son shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, in whose decision I have great faith, in any manner that he considers proper.
I do hereby say that as long as I am alive I shall enjoy of my moveable CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.98/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
and immoveable properties and deal with the same, in any manner like and after my death the properties referred to hereinabove, shall be inherited in the manner mentioned hereinabove. I say that I am in possession of perfect health and senses fully and completely and I have made this WILL of mine of my own free will and without any pressure from any - quarter. This WILL of mine has been prepared by Shri Bal Mukand Gupta, Advocate, Delhi, at my request and in accordance with my desire and directions. He has read over and explained the contents of the WILL to me and I have fully understood the same. I have signed this WILL and have also put my thumb impression in the presence of witnesses who have also signed the same in my presence and in the presence of each other at Delhi. This WILL of mine consists of four pages and i have signed and put my thumb impression on each page.
Sd/-
Chander Bhan Gupta Executant/Testator We, the witnesses, to this WILL certify that the Testator/Executant Shri Chander Bhan Gupta, has signed this WILL and also have put his thumb impression thereupon in our presence and we have signed the same in the presence of the Testator as attesting witnesses. This WILL has been read over and explained to the Testator Shri Chander Bhan Gupta, who also has gone through the same and admitted the contents to be correct.
Witness No. 1.
Sd/-
Witness No. 2.
Sd/-
This WILL has been drafted by me at the request and in accordance with the directions and wishes of the Testator Shri Chander Bhan Gupta, who has signed the same and has put his thumb impression in my presence after going through the WILL and admitting the correctness of the same, which also has been explained to him by CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.99/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
me.
Delhi Dated: 30.5.1983.
Sd/-
(BAL MUKAND GUPTA) ADVOCATE 65/9, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi - 110005.
***
127. A bare perusal of the Will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, Mark B, reveals that specific portions of the suit property have been bequeathed to the plaintiff, defendants no.1 and 2 and Late Sh. Naresh Gupta. The ground floor of the suit property has been divided between the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff, with the left side wing and store falling to the share of the defendant no.2 and the right side wing and store falling to the share of the plaintiff. The first floor and barsati of the suit property has been divided between the defendant no.1 and Late Sh. Naresh Gupta, with the right side wing falling to the share of the defendant no.1 and the left side wing, including the mezzanine floor and a kolki under the staircase on the ground floor falling to the share of Late Sh. Naresh Gupta. Further, the property no. 3792, Gali No. CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.100/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 has been bequeathed to the defendant no.7.
128. It is the plaintiff's case that after the execution of the Will dated 30.05.1983, Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta then cancelled the same after around eight months by way of a registered deed of cancellation dated 09.03.1984, Ex. P-2/D3 to D6. Further, it is not in dispute that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta then expired about four months later on 15.07.1984 at the age of 75 years. The contents of the deed of cancellation dated 09.03.1984, Ex. P-2/D3 to D6, are reproduced below:
EX. P-2/D3 TO D6 DEED OF CANCELLATION DATED 09.03.1984 *** DEED OF CANCELLATION OF WILL I, Chander Bhan Gupta, son of Late Shri Shambhoo Dayal Gupta, aged about 71 years, old and resident of House No. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh. New Delhi - 110005, do hereby execute this and declare as under: -
1. That I had executed the Will dated 30th May, 1983 in respect of my properties mentioned therein, registered as document No 1505, in Book No. 8, Volume No. 244, at pages 3 to 6 under date 2nd of June, 1983 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
2. That now I being in perfect health and senses and sound CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.101/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
mind and of my free will and without any influence or coersion by anyone do hereby cancel and revoke my aforesaid Will dated 30th May, 1983 and declare the same to be of no effect and consequence.
In witness whereof I have executed and sign this Deed in the presence of witnesses at Delhi this 9th day of March, 1984.
WITNESSES: EXECUTANT
1. TILAK RAJ GUPTA
2. NARSINGH DASS AGARWAL
***
(Sic.)
129. A perusal of the above deed of cancellation dated 9.03.1984, Ex. P-2/D3 to D6 does not contain any reason whatsoever as to why Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had decided to revoke his ear- lier will dated 30.05.1984 in which he had distributed all his properties amongst his sons and their legal heirs. The said deed of cancellation dated 09.03.1984 is also witnessed by two witnesses, namely Tilak Raj Gupta and Narsingh Dass Agarwal.
130. The plaintiff examined Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta as PW-5, who first tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW-5/X on 03.09.2012 before the local commissioner. At this time, he was not cross-examined by the defendants no.1, 2 and 3-6, who were the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.102/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
only parties to the suit at this time, since the defendants no.7 - 9 were only impleaded later vide order dated 13.03.2014 on an ap- plication filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 rule 10 CPC. The defendants no. 7 and 8 were also granted permission vide order dated 04.03.2015 to cross-examine the witnesses, whose evidence had already been recorded in the present suit.
131. However, the said witness Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta, PW-5 was never made available by the plaintiff for his cross-examination by the defendants no. 7 and 8. I may also add at this stage that the plaintiff had also filed on record the evidence by way of affidavit of the other witness to the cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984, i.e. Sh. Narsingh Dass on 17.04.2012, however he was never exam- ined in the present case as a witness.
132. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has duly proved the registered cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984 al- legedly executed by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as one of the witness, Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta, PW-5 never appeared for his cross- examination by the defendants no. 7 and 8 and the other witness CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.103/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
Sh. Narsingh Dass was never examined at all, despite his evidence by way of affidavit having been filed. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta expired intestate is also not proved by the plaintiff.
133. The plaintiff has further claimed that his sister Smt. Urmil Singhal, the defendant no.8, executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2005, Ex. PW-5/D1, 3 - 6, with respect to the suit property in favour of all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. However, in view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove the cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984 and under the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, no right, title or interest in the suit property has been bequeathed by him in favour of the defendant no.8, her relinquishment deed with respect to the suit property in favour of her brothers is of no con- sequence in law.
134. Further, the plaintiff has also claimed that the defendant no.9 Smt. Urmila, w/o Sh. Devender Kumar and daughter of his late sister Smt. Raj Dulari has also executed another relinquish- ment deed dated 27.01.2010, Ex. PW-1/4, by way of which she has CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.104/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
relinquished her share in the suit property in favour of the plain- tiff. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove the cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984 and under the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, no right, title or in- terest in the suit property has been bequeathed by him in favour of his daughter Smt. Raj Dulari and the defendant no.9 being her daughter, her relinquishment deed with respect to the suit property in favour of her brothers is also of no consequence in law.
135. The plaintiff has finally claimed that his brother Sh. Rad- hey Shyam Gupta, the defendant no.7, also executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010, Ex. PW-1/3, with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.
136. A bare perusal of the said relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010, Ex. PW-1/3 reveals that it is nowhere stated in the said document that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had cancelled his will dated 30.05.1983 vide a cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984. There is no explanation on the part of the plaintiff as to why the said fact is not mentioned in the document, even though the fact of the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.105/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
cancellation of the will has been set up by the plaintiff himself. The said omission is a glaring one and further raises serious doubts over the said cancellation deed dated 09.03.1983. Further, as al- ready stated, since the plaintiff has also failed to prove the can- cellation deed dated 09.03.1984 and under the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, no right, title or in- terest in the suit property has been bequeathed by him in favour of the defendant no.7, who has been bequeathed the property no. 3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005, his relinquishment deed with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff is also of no consequence in law.
137. In view of the aforementioned facts and reasons, the issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff in the following terms, that the plaintiff is only held entitled to the right-side wing along with the store on the ground floor of the suit property, i.e. property no. 5- C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, totally mea- suring 270 sq. yards, as under the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.106/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
138. With respect to the issue no.5, the same is decided in the following terms, as per the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta:
(a) The plaintiff is only held entitled to the right-side wing along with the store on the ground floor of the suit property, i.e. property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi;
(b) The defendant no.2 is held entitled to the left side wing along with store on the ground floor of the suit property, i.e. property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi;
(c) The defendant no.1 is held entitled to the right-side wing of the first floor along with the open space on the barsati floor in front of the said side of the suit property, i.e. prop-
erty no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi;
(d) The defendants no.3 - 6, being the legal heirs of Late Sh. Naresh Gupta are held entitled to the left side of the first floor along with the mezzanine, kolki under the staircase along with the open space on the barsati floor in front of the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.107/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
said side of the suit property.e. property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi;
(e) The defendant no.7 is held entitled to the entire property of 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
- 110005.
(f) The defendants no. 8 and 9 are not entitled to any share in the suit property or any other property of Late Sh. Chan- der Bhan Gupta as per his will dated 30.05.1983.
139. With respect to issue no.6, as the plaintiff has failed to prove that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had cancelled/revoked his will dated 30.05.1983, the issue no.6 is decided against the plaintiff.
140. With respect to the issue no.7, as the relinquishment deed dated 28.02.2010 is of no consequence in law, the same is also not enforceable against him and the said issue no.7 is decided in favour of the defendant no.7.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.108/113
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
141. With respect to the issue no.8, the onus of the said issue was on the defendant no.8, who did did not lead any evidence to prove the same, accordingly the issue no.8 is decided against the defendant no.8.
142. With respect to the issue no.3, the plaintiff clearly has no cause of action to institute the present suit, and the issue no.3 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Issue no.2
143. I shall next decide issue no.2, which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
2. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee? OPD
144. The onus of the above issue was on the defendants, who have led no specific evidence to prove the actual value of the suit property, accordingly, the issue no.2 is decided against the defen- dants.
Issue no. 4 CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.109/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
145. I shall next decide issue no.4, which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
4. Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC?
OPD
146. The defendant no.7 has raised the preliminary objection that the present suit is barred by the provisions of Order II rule 2 CPC as prior to the filing of the present suit, the plaintiff had filed suit No. 147/2010 (i.e. CSDJ no. 16761/16, titled as ' Ram Kishore Gupta vs Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors' ). The plaintiff has filed the said suit against the defendants no.1 - 7, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff and defendants are the joint owners of the suit property no.3792, Khasra No.2033, Block K, Gali No.20, situated at Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, being the property of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta who expired intestate, along-with cancellation of sale deed dated 17.07.2010 executed by Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta with respect to the suit property in favour of the defendant no.1 along with permanent injunction. The said suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 29.11.2010.
147. In the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking partition of the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.110/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
suit property, i.e. property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which has been instituted subsequently on 03.01.2011.
148. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the decision of Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. vs Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 82, that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC stipulates the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of the same cause of action, in one suit, however, this must not be misunderstood to mean that every suit shall include every claim or every cause of action that the plaintiff may have against the defendant. Therefore, where the causes of action are different in the two suits, Order II Rule 2 would have no application. Further, the 'cause of action' used in Order II rule 2 CPC must be understood to mean 'the particular cause of action'. Hence, where the causes of action are different, the provisions of Order II rule 2 CPC will not apply.
149. A perusal of plaint of the two suits reveals that they are founded on different causes of action. In the earlier suit, i.e. CSDJ CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.111/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
no. 16761/16, titled as 'Ram Kishore Gupta vs Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors', the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the property no. 3792, Khasra no. 2033, Block K, Gali No.20, situated at Rehgarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 is the joint property of the parties, along with declaration of the sale deed dated 17.07.2010 as null and void, whereas in the present suit, the plaintiff is partition of the suit property 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
150. Hence, it cannot be said that the two suits are founded on a same cause of action so as to attract the bar of Order II rule 2 CPC. Accordingly, the issue no.4 is decided against the defendant no.7. Relief
151. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusions, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs. Further, in the suit property, i.e. property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, admeasuring 270 sq. yards, as per the will of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta dated 30.05.1983, the plaintiff is only held entitled to the right-side wing along with the store on the CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.112/113 Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Mohan Dass Gupta & Ors.
ground floor of the suit property. The defendant no.2 is held enti- tled to the left side wing along with store on the ground floor of the suit property. The defendant no.1 is held entitled to the right- side wing of the first floor along with the open space on the barsati floor in front of the said side of the suit property. The defendants no.3 - 6, being the legal heirs of Late Sh. Naresh Gupta are held entitled to the left side of the first floor along with the mezzanine, kolki under the staircase along with the open space on the barsati floor in front of the said side of the suit property. The defendants no. 8 and 9 are not entitled to any share in the suit property or any other property of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as per his will dated 30.05.1983. Decree sheet be drawn up. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Judgment be uploaded after corrections.
JITEN Digitally signed
by JITEN MEHRA
MEHRA 16:57:35 +0530
Date: 2026.01.24
Announced in the open court. (JITEN MEHRA)
Dated: 24.01.2026 DISTRICT JUDGE-10 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
CS DJ No. 616132/16 Page No.113/113