Delhi District Court
Ram Kishore Gupta vs Radhey Shyam Gupta on 24 January, 2026
Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITEN MEHRA,
DISTRICT JUDGE -10: CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
CS DJ No. - 616761/2016
CNR No: DLCT01-000351-2010
IN THE MATTER OF :-
RAM KISHORE GUPTA
Son of Late Shri Chander Bhan,
R/o 3c/43, New Rohtak Road, Delhi.
...Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA (dead) Through L.Rs.
(a) Shri Ashwani Gupta
Son of Late Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta
R/o 127, Vishali, Pitampura Delhi 34.
(b) Smt. Sneh Gupta
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 1
Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
D/o Late Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta
Resident of AM-99, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi-88.
(c) Smt. Sushma Gupta
Daughter of Late Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta
R/o C-22/11, Sector 3, Rohini Delhi.
2. MOHAN DASS GUPTA
Through his LRs
(a) Shruti
W/o Pradeep
R/o LP-38, LIG flats, Pitampura,
Near Gopal Mandir, New Delhi-88
(b) Aruna Gupta
W/o Arvind Gupta
R/o 9/2384, gali no. 13,
Kailash Nagar, Delhi-31
3. CHANCHAL GUPTA
W/o Late Naresh Kumar Gupta
4. ANKIT GUPTA
S/o Late Naresh Kumar Gupta
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 2
Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
5. ANKUR GUPTA
S/o Late Naresh Kumar Gupta
S no. 3 to 5 R/o D-11/77, 1st Floor,
Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085
6. 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
7. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA (deceased)
Through LRs.
(a) Mrs. Neera Gupta (wife)
(b) Mr. Nishant Gupta (son)
(c) Ms. Disha Gupta (daughter)
All R/o 5C/40, New Rohtak Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
....... Defendants
Date of institution : 06.01.2011
Date of reserving order : 24.09.2024
Date of pronouncement of order : 24.01.2026
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 3
Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present 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.
2. 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 Mohan Dass Gupta and Ors', bearing CSDJ no. 16132/16, instituted by the plaintiff seeking a CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 4 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
declaration that another property of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, i.e. property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi is the joint property of the plaintiff and his brothers.
b) Civil suit titled as 'Mohan Dass Gupta and Ors. vs Ram Kishore Gupta and Ors, bearing CS DJ no. 613272/16, instituted by the defendant no.2 herein, seeking partition of the suit property. PLAINTIFF'S VERSION AS PER THE PLAINT
3. That Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, s/o Late Sh. Shambhu Dayal, is stated to be the owner of property bearing no.3792, Khasra No.2033, Block K, Gali No.20, situated at Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ('suit property'), vide a lease deed dated 31.12.1963, duly registered as document No.8857 in Addl. Book No.1, Volume No.1072 on pages 80 to 84 with Sub-Registrar, New Delhi dated 31-12-1963.
4. That Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta expired intestate, although he executed a registered Will dated 30.05.1983 in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant no.1, which was duly registered as document CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 5 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
No.1505 in Book No.3, Volume No.244 on pages 3 to 6 with Sub-Registrar- III, New Delhi; however he said will was cancelled by him vide a registered deed of cancellation of Will dated 09.3.1984, duly registered as document No.849 in Book No.3, Volume No.269 on page 49 with Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi.
5. That Shri Chander Bhan Gupta died on 15.07.1984 leaving behind the following legal heirs:
i) Shri Mohan Dass Gupta/defendant no.2 (son).
ii) Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta/defendant no.1 (son).
iii) Shri Ram Kishore Gupta(son).
iv) Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta (son), represented by the defendants no. 3 - 6).
v) Shri Tirlok Chand Gupta (predeceased son), represented by his son the defendant no.7.
vi) Smt. Raj Dulari (daughter)
vii) Smt. Urmila Singhal (daughter) CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 6 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
6. However, Smt. Raj Dulari expired on 5.3.1991 leaving behind her husband Sh. Moti Ram Bansal, who expired on 18.01.2006 and a daughter Smt. Urmila, w/o Devender Kumar who is her only successor.
7. That Smt. Urmila released her 1/7th undivided share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by way of a registered release deed dated 24.1.2010, registered on 27.01.2010 as document No.691 in Addl. Book No.1, Volume No.13484 on pages 123 to 126.
8. That Smt. Urmila Singhal, w/o Sh. N.S. Singhal also released her 1/7th undivided share in favour of the plaintiff and defendants by way of a registered release deed, duly registered as document No.5734, in Addl, Book 1, Volume No. 11555 on pages 175-177 dated 12.7.2005. As per the plaintiff, the daughters of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta or their successors have not been impleaded in the suit as defendants as they have already relinquished their respective rights before the filing of the present suit.
9. That the suit property is in a dilapidated condition and no one is residing CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 7 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
therein and as such is in joint possession of the parties.
10. That the defendant no.1, taking advantage of the will dated 30.5.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, whereby the suit property had been bequeathed to him, conspicuously and without the knowledge and consent of the other legal heirs, sold the suit property to Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Arti Gupta vide a registered sale deed dated 8.7.2010, duly registered on 14.07.2010 as document No.6828 in Book No.1, Volume No. 13748 on pages 167 to 175 with Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi. The defendant no.1 claimed himself to be the sole owner of the suit property on the basis of the will dated 30.5.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, which was cancelled by him on 9.3.1984 vide a registered deed of cancellation of will.
11. That Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Arti Gupta took possession of the property and started demolishing the existing structure and on enquiry, the plaintiff was astonished to learn that the defendant no. l has sold the property on the basis of the subsequently cancelled will dated 30.5.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. The plaintiff apprised them about the fact of CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 8 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
cancellation of the said will and only then they approached the defendant no.1 to refund the sale consideration received by him and the defendant no.1 was forced to return the amount of sale consideration to them and with mala fide intention and illegal design got the property conveyed by way of sale Deed in his favour alone vide sale deed dated 17.7.2010, duly registered as document no.7469 in Addl. Book No.1, Volume 13774 on pages 146 to 155 with Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi on 20.7.2010.
12. That the defendant no.1 by getting the property re-conveyed in his favour alone, deprived the other sons and daughters of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta of their respective share in the suit property and committed a fraud on the plaintiff as well as other defendants.
13. That the plaintiff and other defendants learnt that the defendant no.1 is now trying to sell the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 17.7.2010 whereby he has got the suit property re-conveyed in his favour alone and on learning of this fact, they got a notice issued from their counsel on 23.9.2010, which was duly served on him.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 9 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
14. That despite service of notice, the defendant no.1 neither replied to the said notice nor desisted from his evil design of trying to sell the suit property and has been making negotiations and approaching the property dealers of the vicinity for selling the same on the basis of the sale deed dated 17.7.2010.
15. That apprehending that the defendant no.1 may succeed in luring any gullible purchaser to purchase the suit property, the plaintiff got a public notice issued in the newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' on 7.11.2010.
16. That the defendant no.1 is adamant to sell the suit property, thereby depriving the plaintiff and the other defendants of their due share, the plaintiff is left with no other alternative except to file the present suit for seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 17.7.2010 is illegal, invalid and a nullity and thereby no legal valid title has been conferred on him as well holding that the property bearing No.3792, Gali No.20, Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 is owned by the plaintiff as well as the CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 10 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
defendants.
17. That the cause of action is stated to have arisen in favour of the plaintiff, when he learnt of the fact of the sale made by the defendant no.1 in favour of Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Arti Gupta on or about 10.7.2010 and thereafter it arose on 20.7.2010 when the plaintiff learnt that the defendant no.1 has got the property re-conveyed from the said Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Arti Gupta in his favour alone and thereafter it arose on the service of notice dated 23.9.2010 and since then the same is continuing and still subsists.
18. That the property in suit is situated at Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the parties to the suit reside and work for gain at Delhi and the cause of action arose at Delhi, therefore, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit.
19. That the value of the suit for the purposes of Court fees for the relief of CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 11 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
declaration and cancellation of sale deed is Rs. 16,00,000/-, being the sale consideration in the sale deed. The value of the suit for purpose of the relied of injunction is Rs.130/- on which Court-fee stamp of Rs. 17,965/- has been paid.
20. The plaintiff therefore prays that a decree of declaration be passed thereby declaring the suit property is the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendants and the sale deed dated 17.7.2010 executed by Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Aarti Gupta in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant no. l is illegal, invalid and be declared null and void, and be cancelled. The defendant No.1 be also restrained by passing a decree of permanent injunction to give effect or from selling, alienating and transferring the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 17.7.2010 executed in his favour by Shri Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Aarti Gupta. The plaintiff also prays that the costs of the suit be also awarded in his favour. DEFENDANTS' VERSION AS PER THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS Written statement cum counter-claim of the defendant no.1 CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 12 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
21. The defendant no.1 raised the preliminary objections that the plaintiff has only filed the suit for declaration and cancellation and has not filed the suit for partition of the properties of Late Shri Chander Bhan Gupta or their mother Late Smt. Chameli Devi. Further, that the plaintiff is guilty of willful suppression and misrepresentation of the true facts. The suit of the plaintiff is also stated to be barred by time, as no suit for partition had been filed by him on the death of their parents.
22. The plaintiff has also suppressed the fact that he had earlier served a legal notice dated 20.12.2005 for division of the suit property, which was duly replied to by the answering defendant vide his reply dated 17.01.2006. Thereafter, the Plaintiff took no steps to challenge the defence of the answering defendant. In fact, after furnishing of the said reply, the plaintiff also gave an affidavit in the month of March, 2010 admitting that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had duly executed the will dated 30.05.1983, by way of which the suit property was bequeathed to the answering defendant no.1 and he had become the exclusive owner of the suit property. The plaintiff further stated in the said affidavit that the plaintiff had no objection if the CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 13 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
said property is mutated in the name of the answering defendant no.1. The plaintiff is therefore estopped from filing the present suit. In case, however, the plaintiff disputes and denies the contention of the answering defendant no.1, then it is submitted that all the properties left behind by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and his wife Smt. Chameli Devi are liable to be partitioned between their legal heirs, in which the answering defendant no.1 is entitled to 1/7th share in the same.
23. The answering defendant no.1 has further submitted that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, in his lifetime, had settled the devolution of the properties held by the family and his wife Smt. Chameli Devi in the year 1960 by way of an oral settlement. By of the said oral settlement, Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta gave the suit property, measuring 50 sq. yards, exclusively to the defendant no.1. That ever since the year 1960, the suit property has been in the possession and occupation and enjoyment of the answering defendant no.1 as exclusive owner thereof. The answering defendant no.1 has also exclusively the house-tax of the suit property and maintained the same since the year 1960. Further, even the lease money for CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 14 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
the suit property has been exclusively paid by the answering defendant no.1 ever since after the said settlement made by the father of the replying Defendant in the year 1960.
24. Further, in the said oral settlement of the year 1960, Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had also separately given another house in Gali No. 49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, to his other son Late Shri Trilok Chand, who is since deceased and is survived by the present defendant No.7. Further, under the same settlement, the property No.5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, which is also a built up property on land measuring about over 270 square yards, was apportioned between the defendant no.2, plaintiff and Late Sh. Naresh Kumar (who is now survived by the defendants no.3 - 6), and one share in the said property was retained by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta for himself. Further, though the said property No.5- C/40, New Rohtak Road, was in the name of his wife Smt. Chameli Devi, she was only a name lender and the said property was, in fact, purchased for the family by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. Hence, on account of the oral settlement of the year 1960, neither the present plaintiff nor any of the other parties claimed or CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 15 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
setup any title in the suit property or any of the other properties after the death of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. Further, over 25 years had elapsed since the death of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and now false disputes are attempted to be illegally raised by the present Plaintiff. The parties were also in settled possession of their respective properties and portions since the said settlement.
25. The answering defendant no.1 further submits that the plaintiff also got executed a relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 for the relinquishment of his 1/7th share in the property No.5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. However it is submitted that in case this Court holds or comes to the conclusion that no family settlement of the properties had been arrived at and acted upon by the parties as above stated, then it is submitted that all the properties left behind by Late Shri Chander Bhan Gupta and Smt. Chameli Devi are liable to be pooled and partitioned amongst the parties according to their respective shares of 1/7th each and all Relinquishment Deeds propounded or setup by the Plaintiff or any of the other heirs of Late Shri Chander Bhan Gupta and Smt. Chameli Devi are liable to be cancelled and CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 16 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
declared as invalid and non-est and the replying Defendant in that event is entitled to 1/7th share in all the properties and the present written statement be treated as a counter-claim of the replying Defendant for partition to the said effect.
26. It is further submitted that Smt. Chameli Devi had predeceased her husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, leaving behind her duly executed Will dated 20.10.1979, by way of which she had bequeathed the property No.5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi in favour of her husband Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. Thus, on her death Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta became the absolute owner of the said property and he then executed a will dated 30.05.1983. Thus, Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta in his lifetime settled the properties in favour of his different sons. Therefore, the rental income of property No.5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi was also never shared with the answering defendant no.1, though the said property had been earning about Rs.30,000/- per month as rent.
27. It is further submitted that the original will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 17 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Chander Bhan Gupta was retained by the plaintiff and was given by the plaintiff to the answering defendant no.1 only last year, after having obtained from him a relinquishment deed with respect to the property no.5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. However, the plaintiff has still retained the punchnama executed by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, confirming the settlement of the property No.3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in favour of the answering defendant no.1.
28. That the plaintiff knows fully well that the answering defendant no.1 is suffering from several ailments such as high blood pressure, heart ailment, has already undergone post PTCA twice, CAD etc. and can ill afford the luxury of litigation and expenses and follow up required for the prosecution of the case, which is stated to be a frivolous litigation.
29. In the reply on merits, the answering defendant no.1 admitted that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was the owner of the suit property, however denied that he had expired intestate. The answering defendant no.1 reiterated that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had executed a registered will dated CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 18 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
30.05.1983 and it was denied that the same was ever cancelled by him by way of the cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984, which was stated to be a forged and fabricated document. The witnesses in the said cancellation deed were also not known to Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and are friends and relatives of the plaintiff. Further, there was no occasion for Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta to have cancelled his will.
30. The answering defendant no.1 also denied that Smt. Urmila or Smt. Urmila Singhal had executed any release deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was also denied that the plaintiff was in possession or joint possession of the suit property and the answering defendant no.1 claimed exclusive possession of the same.
31. The answering defendant no.1 also denied that he had illegally or falsely executed the sale deed in favour of Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Arti Gupta and asserted himself to be the sole and absolute owner of the suit property, having the absolute right of disposal thereof. He further submitted that the said purchasers, for reason of their own or perhaps on the false instigation CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 19 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
by the plaintiff, did not want to enter into litigation and therefore, approached the answering defendant no.1 to re-convey the property to him, if he was ready to compensate them for their expenses. As the answering defendant no.1 had no evil motive in the sale of the suit property and in order to dispel the doubt falsely created by the plaintiff in the minds of the said purchasers, readily agreed to buy back the said property and the same was duly conveyed to him on a premium by means of a duly registered sale deed.
32. The answering defendant no.1 further denied that apart from him, any other person had any right, title or interest in the suit property and also denied that any fraud had been committed on the plaintiff or any defendant. He also reiterated that after his reply dated 17.01.2006 to the plaintiff's legal notice dated 20.12.2005, the plaintiff took no action whatsoever to dispel or repudiate the contentions raised by him.
33. The answering defendant no.1 further denied that he was looking to sell the suit property by approaching property dealers and the legal notice dated 23.09.2010 issued by the plaintiff and other defendants was stated to be CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 20 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
based on false averments. Further it was also denied that any public notice in the newspaper was ever issued by the plaintiff. The answering defendant no.1 also denied that any cause of action had accrued in favour of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint.
34. The defendant no.1 sought for dismissal of the present suit and by way of counter-claim stated that in case this Court holds that there has been no settlement of the properties by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta in his lifetime in favour of his heirs as set--out by the answering defendant no.1, then all the properties of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta be divided by way of metes and bounds amongst his legal heirs.
Written statement of the defendant no.2
35. The defendant no.2 raised the preliminary objections that the present suit was not maintainable in law and was based on false and frivolous facts. The defendant no.2 also asserted that the suit property belonged to the defendant no.1 as per the family settlement as well as the registered will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. The cancellation deed dated CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 21 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
09.03.1984 was stated to be forged and fabricated.
36. Further, the plaint was also stated to be incorrectly valued as the suit property was actually sold by defendant no.1 to Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta for a sum of Rs.1.6 Crores, however the sale deed was registered for a sum of Rs.15 lacs only. Hence, the plaintiff was required to file ad valorem Court fees on the sum of Rs. 1.6 crores.
37. The suit of the plaintiff was also stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had not been impleaded by the plaintiff, i.e. Smt. Urmil Singhal and LRs of another sister late Smt. Raj Dulari. Further the plaintiff had also not filed any suit for partition of the suit property.
38. The defendant no.2 further submitted that the true facts, which had been suppressed by the plaintiff, were that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was the owner of three properties, i.e: (a) property bearing No.5C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-5; (b) property No.3792, Gali No.20, Regharpura, Karol CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 22 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Bagh, New Delhi-5; and (c) property No.4668, in Gali No.49, Raigarpur, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05. In the year 1960, the parents orally partitioned all the above three properties, whereby the (b) property No.3792, Gali No.20, Raigarpur, Karol Bagh was given to their eldest son Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta/defendant no.1 absolutely and forever. The (c) property no. 4668 in Gali No.49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, was given to another son Shri Trilok Chand Gupta; and the (a) property no.5C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was given to the remaining three sons, i.e. the defendant no.2, plaintiff and Naresh Kumar Gupta. The parents did not give any right in these properties in favour of both their daughters since both are well settled and huge amount was spent in their marriages.
39. Further, Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta expired in April, 1960 leaving behind his wife and son Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta/defendant no.7. After the death of his wife, the defendant no.7 sold his property no. 4668 in Gali No.49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, and purchased a shop in Hapur (U.P). After sometime, the defendant no.7 sold the said shop at Hapur (U.P) and came back to reside in the (a) property No.5C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 23 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
New Delhi. Although he had already taken his share, however Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta again gave the defendant no.7 1/4th share in the said property by way of his registered will dated 30.05.1983.
40. That the defendant no.1 has been in actual, physical possession of the suit property since the year 1960 as its absolute owner and also executed a declaration dated 23.01.1967 declaring that he has no concern or share or right, title or interest in the property no.5C/40, Karol Bagh and property No.4668, Gali No.49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
41. As per the registered will of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, the suit property has been bequeathed to the defendant no.1 and the property No.5C/40, New Rohtak Road,l Karol Bagh, New Delhi was given to the defendant no.2, Naresh Kumar Gupta, plaintiff and the defendant no.7 and nothing was given to both the daughters. The original of the said will is in the custody and possession of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff is blackmailing the defendant no.1 by falsely claiming that their father had cancelled the said Will vide a registered cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984 CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 24 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
and hence the defendant no.1 is not the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has further stated that no other brother or sister is having knowledge of cancellation of their father's will, therefore, the plaintiff can allow the defendant no.1 to sell the suit property, provided he execute a relinquishment deed in his favour in the property no.5C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and further give around 10% of the total cost of his Regharpura Property. When the defendant no.1 did not accept his illegal demand, the the plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 20.12.2005 claiming all the brothers and sisters as shareholders in his property on the basis of cancellation of their father's Will. The said notice was sent by the plaintiff on behalf of the answering defendant no.2, defendant no.7 and Naresh Kumar Gupta without their consent and knowledge, which amounts to a criminal offence. These facts came to the knowledge of the answering defendant no.1, when the defendant no.2 filed his written statement. The defendant no.1 also sent his reply dated 17.01.2006 to the plaintiff's notice.
42. Hence, under compelling circumstances and in furtherance of the plaintiff's illegal design, the defendant no.1 was compelled to execute a CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 25 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
relinquishment deed 26.02.2010 in favour of the plaintiff, thereby relinquishing his alleged 1/7th share in the property no. 5C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi, when in fact the defendant no.1 has no share in the said property. However, the defendant no.1 agreed to do so, with the understanding that the plaintiff would not create any problem in the sale of the suit property by him. Further, the plaintiff also executed an affidavit in March, 2010 affirming that the suit property had been bequeathed in favour of Radhey Shyam Gupta in terms of their father's registered will dated 30.05.1983. Hence, even in March, 2010, the plaintiff was either concealing the cancellation deed of their father's will or was having the knowledge that the said cancellation of father's Will is forged and fabricated.
43. Further, with the help and collusion of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 sold the suit property to Shri Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta vide registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.2010 for a total consideration of about Rs.1.6 Crores, out of which amount, the defendant no.1 had to give around Rs.20 lakhs to the plaintiff. However, despite the same, in order to further blackmail the defendant no.1, the plaintiff has filed the present suit, claiming that all the CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 26 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
brothers and sisters have equal rights in the suit property, without filing any suit for partition.
44. Further, Smt. Urmila w/o Devender Kumar, the daughter of their sister Late Smt. Raj Dulari had earlier executed a relinquishment deed dated 15.06.2005 in favour of all the brothers, which was duly notarized as well. The plaintiff has suppressed the said fact and claimed that Smt. Urmila has executed a relinquishment deed dated 27.01.2010 in his favour. However, in view of the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, she has no right, title or interest / share in the suit property and, therefore, her alleged relinquishment deed is infructuous. It is further submitted that said Smt.Urmila W/o Shri Devinder Kumar told the answering defendant no.2 upon inquiry that the plaintiff had brought her to sign and execute some power of attorney before the Sub-Registrar, Delhi and she, was totally unaware of the relinquishment deed and effects thereof and would be filing a suit for cancellation of the same.
45. It is further submitted that the alleged cancellation of the will is a forged document as Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was seriously ill since January, CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 27 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
1984 till his death in July, 1984 and was not in a sound state of health and mind. The alleged signature and even the thumb impression on the said cancellation deed do not belong to Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and the same has been witnesses by a close friend of the plaintiff and his Saadhu, i.e. the husband of the sister of the plaintiff's wife and are interested witnesses, who are in collusion with the plaintiff.
46. It is further submitted that Smt.Urmil Singhal had also executed a relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2005 in favour of all the five brothers, however the same is also of no consequence in view of the registered will dated 03.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. It is further submitted that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the cancellation of will of party's father is genuine. Then the share of the plaintiff would come to 31.3285% and share of the defendant no.1 would be 17.1428%, and the share of the answering defendant no.2 would be 17.1428%, the share of the defendants no. 3 - 6 would be 17.1428% and share of defendant no.7 would be 17.28% in the suit property. In case, this Court holds that the cancellation of Will of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta is forged and fabricated, then the CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 28 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
suit property would be owned by the defendant no.1 alone.
47. In the reply on merits, the similar contentions as the preliminary objections were raised by the defendant no.2. The suit of the plaintiff was sought to be dismissed with costs.
Written statement of the defendants no. 3 - 6
48. The defendants no.3 - 6 raised the preliminary objection that the suit property was worth more than Rs. 6 Crore and hence, there was no pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit.
49. In the reply on merits, the answering defendants no. 3 - 6 admitted that the will dated 30.05.1983 had been cancelled by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta on 09.03.1984. Further, the relinquishment deed dated 24.01.2010 executed by Smt. Urmila, daughter of Late Smt. Raj Dulari in favour of the plaintiff was stated to be a document which she executed without knowing its contents as she was an illiterate lady and that Smt. Urmila had earlier executed a relinquishment deed in favour of all the Lrs of Late Sh. Chander CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 29 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Bhan Gupta. The answering defendants no. 3 - 6 admitted the relinquishment deed dated 12.07.2005 executed by Smt. Urmila Singhal. However, it was denied that the suit property was in a dilapidated condition and it was submitted that two persons were residing in the same. Further, the suit property was divided into four parts, of which two parts were vacant. However, although the answering defendants no. 3 - 6 admitted the material averments of the plaint, in reply to the prayer clause, the answering defendants no. 3 - 6 submitted that "the plaintiff's suit does not concern with the answering defendants, so suit may kindly be disposed of as same is not maintainable against the answering defendants, in the interests of justice". Written statement of the defendant no.7
50. The defendant no.7 raised the preliminary objection that he was a patient of Schizophrenia for the last 29 years and was also a mentally disabled person to the extent of 71%. He further submitted that the plaintiff had got the signatures of the answering defendant no.7 on the relinquishment deed on 11.07.2005, purporting to be a deed of relinquishment of Smt. Urmil Singhal on which the answering defendant no.7 was supposed to sign as a CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 30 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
witness. However, the plaintiff has played a fraud upon the answering defendant no.7 and mentioned the name of the answering defendant in the name of releaser of the property of late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. The said relinquishment deed is stated to be null, void and ineffective.
51. In the reply on merits, the answering defendant no.7 admitted that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was the owner of the suit property, who had executed a will dated 30.05.1983, which was cancelled by him vide a deed of cancellation dated 09.03.1984, hence Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had expired intestate. The answering defendant no.7 denied for want of knowledge that Smt. Urmila, daughter of Late Smt. Raj Dulari had executed a relinquishment deed dated 24.01.2010 in favour of the plaintiff. The answering defendant no.7 denied that Late Smt. Urmila Singhal had executed e relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff and defendants and stated that the plaintiff had asked him to sign as a witness, however has fraudulently mentioned his name in the said deed as a 'releaser'. Hence, the said relinquishment deed was null and void. The answering defendant no.7 further admitted that the suit property was in a dilapidated condition.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 31 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
52. The answering defendant no.7 further also admitted that the defendant no.1 had sold the suit property by way of a registered sale deed dated 08.07.2010 in favour of Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta, without the knowledge and consent of the other legal heirs. He also admitted that that the said Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta have later re-conveyed the property to the defendant no.1 only vide a registered sale deed dated 17.07.2010. The defendant no.7 submitted that the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. REPLICATION BY THE PLAINTIFF Replication to the written statement of the defendant no.1
53. The plaintiff denied that the present suit was not maintainable without seeking the relief of partition and stated that the suit for partition would be initiated after the declaration of the sale deed dated 17.07.2010 as null and void. The plaintiff also denied that he had suppressed any material facts. The preliminary objection that the suit was barred on account of limitation was also denied. The plaintiff further admitted that he had earlier sent a legal CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 32 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
notice dated 20.12.2005 to the defendant no.1 and stated that it was mutatis mutandis when compared with his subsequent legal notice dated 23.09.2010 and the suit property had been claimed as joint property in both the said notices. The plaintiff denied giving any affidavit in March, 2010 to the defendant no.1 admitting the will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as his last will and reiterated that the said will had been cancelled vide the cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984 and he had expired intestate. The plaintiff further asserted that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had, during his lifetime, sold the property no. 4668, Gali no. 49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and was left with the suit property and the property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi - 110005, which were now the joint properties of his legal heirs, including the plaintiff. He further asserted that the defendant no.1 had already relinquished his 1/7th share in the property no. C-5/50, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi - 110005 in favour of the plaintiff.
54. The plaintiff further denied that any oral settlement had taken place in the year 1960, whereby the suit property had been given to the defendant no.1. The assertions of payment of house-tax by the defendant no.1 were also CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 33 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
denied as conferring any title on the defendant no.1. The plaintiff further submitted that he had been paying his share of the house-tax qua the suit property to the defendant no.1. The plaintiff also denied that the property no. 4668, Gali no. 49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was given to Late Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. The plaintiff denied the averments of the reply on merits of the written statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint as being true and correct. Replication to the written statement of the defendant no.2
55. The plaintiff denied the averments of the written statement of the defendant no.2 as well and reiterated the contents of the plaint as being true and correct.
Replication to the written statement of the defendants no. 3-6
56. The plaintiff denied that the value of the suit property was more than Rs. 6 crores and stated that since the answering defendants no. 3- 6 had admitted the factum of cancellation of the will of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, the same was reiterated as being true and correct.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 34 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Replication to the written statement of the defendant no.7
57. The plaintiff did not file any replication to the written statement of the defendant no.7.
RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT
58. Vide order dated 20.08.2011, the wife of the defendant no.7 was appointed as guardian ad-litum on his behalf in the present suit. ISSUES FRAMED
59. Vide order dated 13.10.2011, the following issues were framed in the present suit:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration thereby declaring the property bearing no. 3792, (Khara No. 2033), Gali No. 20, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as joint property of the plaintiff and the defendants? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration thereby declaring the sale deed dated 17.07.2010 executed by Sh. Sanjay CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 35 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Gupta and Smt. Aarti Gupta in favour of defendant no.1 qua suit property bearing no. 3792, (Khasra No. 2033), Gali No. 20, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi registered as document no. 7469, Additional Book no. 1, Volume no. 13774, Pages 146 to 155 as null and void? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendant no. 1 permanently from selling, alienating and transferring the property bearing no. 3792, (Khasra No. 2033), Gali No. 20, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on the basis of the sale deed dated 17.07.2010.? OPP
4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Relief.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
Evidence of the plaintiff as PW-1
60. The plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 36 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/X on 20.11.2012, in which he reiterated the contents of the plaint, which are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity. The plaintiff/PW-1 relied on the following documents in support of his case:
a. Deed of cancellation of the will dated 09.03.1984 as Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR).
b. Death certificate of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta as Mark A. c. Relinquishment deed dated 12.07.2005 executed by Smt. Urmil Singhal as Ex. PW-1/3.
d. Relinquishment deed dated 12.07.2005 executed by Smt. Urmila, daughter of Late Smt. Raj Dulari as Ex. PW-1/4.
e. Sale deed dated 17.07.2010 executed by Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta in favour of the defendant no.1 as Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR). f. Carbon copy of the notice dated 27.09.2010 as Ex. PW-1/6. g. Public notice in the newspaper as Ex. PW-1/7.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 37 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
61. The plaintiff/PW-1 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 on 20.11.2012, during which he admitted that he had not disclosed all the properties of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta in the present suit. He stated that his mother Late Smt. Chameli Devi had expired on 06.01.1980 and his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had expired on 15.07.1984. He stated that he had filed a suit for partition of the properties in the year 2011, which was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, and stated that the said suit pertained to only the property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi - 110005. He further stated that he had not impleaded the defendant no.1 as party in the said suit. Thereafter, his further cross- examination was deferred.
62. The plaintiff/PW-1 was next cross-examined on 16.04.2013 by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1, during which he stated that his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had left behind the properties bearing no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Raigarh Pura, Delhi (suit property) and property no. 5-C/40 New Rohtak Road, Delhi and that he had no other property in his life time. He further stated that he came to know of the will dated 30.5.1983 of his CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 38 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
father in the year 2005. He denied the suggestion that he was falsely deposing about the year of the knowledge of the said will and that he knew of the same immediately after the execution thereof by his father. He further stated that he came to know in the year 2005 about the cancellation of the aforesaid will dated 30.5.1983 through his relatives, but could not give any occasion by which he came to know about fact of the cancellation of the will. At first the plaintiff/PW-1 stated that he had never seen the deed of cancellation of the will and again stated that he had seen the said cancellation deed once in the possession of the defendant no. 1 in the year 2005. He further stated that he had gone with his younger brother Naresh Gupta to the house of defendant no. 1 to demand for the said cancellation deed, but the defendant only gave the particulars thereof to his younger brother and did not hand over the said cancellation deed.
63. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that Ex. PW-1/D1 is the said original will dated 30.5.1983 executed by his father. He further stated that he did not remember the date or month in the year 2005 when he went to the house of the defendant no.1 to demand the deed of cancellation of the will and again CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 39 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
stated that it was at the time of Holi. He further stated that the original will dated 30.5.1983 was with his younger brother Naresh Gupta and did not know up to which period or year the said original will was with Naresh Gupta. He denied the suggestion that he was falsely deposing on this aspect. He also denied the suggestion that in fact the said original will was with him and was handed over by him to the defendant no. 1 after he got executed a relinquishment deed from the defendant no.1 in his favour with respect to the property 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Delhi.
64. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that the name of his brother-in-law (husband of his wife's sister) is Nar Singh Dass Agarwal. He further stated that he did not know any person by the name of Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta and again said he was a friend of his father. He stated that Sh. Nar Singh Dass Agarwal was witness no.2 to the cancellation deed, Ex. PW-1/1. He further deposed that he did not recollect if his brother-in-law Nar Singh Dass Agarwal had ever disclosed to him that he had stood as a witness to the said cancellation deed, Ex. PW-1/1. He further stated vaguely that " It may be he may have disclosed the same to me".
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 40 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
65. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that he was engaged in the profession of arranging matrimonial alliances for the last 15-20 years and prior to that he was a building contractor. He stated that he did not know what business or profession the witness to the cancellation deed Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta was engaged in. He further stated that Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta stays in Pitampura for the last 10-12 years, and did not remember where he was residing prior thereto and it may be possible that he was residing Naiwali Gali, Karol Bagh, but he was not 'exactly' aware about the same. He further stated that he had (met) Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta when he used to visit his father. He denied the suggestion that he was falsely deposing about Sh. Tilak Raj Gupta being the friend of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta or that in fact he was his friend and they did contractor business together. The plaintiff further stated that he had met Tilak Raj Gupta in in marriage functions and havans etc. during the last 10-12 years and had last met him about 5-6 months back in Karol Bagh in connection with the plaintiff's case which was pending adjudication in the High Court. He denied the suggestion that he was falsely deposing about meeting Tilak Raj Gupta in the Karol Bagh Market.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 41 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
66. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that the issue of the cancellation will is also in issue in the suit before the High Court with respect to the partition of property no, 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Delhi and in that connection he had discussed with Tilak Raj Gupta. He further stated that he was not aware whether his father was in contact with or known to any advocate from whom he used to get his work done. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that he was not aware if the will dated 30.05.1983, Ex. PW-1/D1 was got drafted by his father from Sh. Bal Mukand Gupta, Advocate or that Sh. Bal Mukand Gupta had already expired. He further stated that he had never enquired from his brother-in-law Narsingh Dass Gupta or from Mr. Tilak Raj Gupta as to whom the original alleged cancellation deed was handed over to by his father. The plaintiff/PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had falsely fabricated the cancellation of will, Ex. PW-1/1 and that the same was never executed by his father. He further denied the suggestion that it also did not bear the signatures of his father and therefore he had intentionally with-held the same. He further volunteered to state that the defendant no. 1 is in possession of the cancellation deed of the will and he has intentionally withheld the same.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 42 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
67. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that he did not remember if he had informed his advocate at the time of the preparation of the plaint of the present case that the original of Ex. PW-1/1 is in the possession of defendant no. 1, and volunteered to state that he had supplied him the certified copy thereof. He did not remember when he had applied for the certified copy of the cancellation deed, Ex. PW-1/1, however stated that it was around the year 2005.
68. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that before the filing of the present suit, he had served only one notice upon the defendant no. 1, which was served in the year 2005 or 2006. He further stated that the notice, Ex. PW-1/D2 was got served by him in December 2005. He also admitted that he had received a reply to the said notice, which was Ex. PW-1/D3. He further stated that he had applied for certified copy of the cancellation deed, Ex. PW-1/1 on 6.6.2005, which was prepared shortly thereafter. and the same was ready shortly there-after. He further stated that after the receipt of the said certified copy applied for in June 2005, he had obtained several certified copies of the CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 43 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
said cancellation deed and therefore could not state which one of the said certified copy has been filed by him on the present court record. He further stated after seeing the court record that it was correct that he had only filed a photocopy of the certified copy of the said cancellation deed, which was obtained by him in in October 2010 and the original thereof was still with him.
69. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that no talks took place between him and the defendant no. 1 after the service of the notice, Ex. PW-1/D2. He affirmed that there was another house in Regarpura, but he was not aware of the number thereof. He stated that it was owned by his mother Late Smt. Chameli Devi, who sold the same during her her life time. He stated that he did know it's number or gali (street), where it was situated, and did not know if the said property was situated in gali no. 49, Regarpura, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that the said property was vested in his father by virtue of a will executed by Smt. Chamaili Devi in favour of his father. He further stated that he did not know to whom the said property was sold by his mother.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 44 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
70. The plaintiff/PW-1 further denied the suggestion that his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan had in his life time settled all the properties and the manner in which the same were to vest amongst his sons and a Panchnama to the said settlement was also executed. He denied the suggestion that the suit property had been settled in favour of the defendant no. 1 as owner thereof, and volunteered to state that it was given to him to only stay there with his family, in or about the year 1968.
71. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that his mother Late Smt. Chameli Devi expired on 6.1.1980 and his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta expired on 15.07.1984. He further stated that the defendant no. 1 has been residing in Pitampura since the year 1988 and prior thereto he alongwith his family was residing in the suit property no. 3792, Gali No. 20 Regarpura, Delhi. He further stated that his mother and father sometimes used to stay in the suit property and sometime used to live in property 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. He further stated that besides himself and the defendant no. 1, there are three other brothers and two sisters. He stated that his two sisters got married in the years 1955 and 1979. He stated that since the year 1968, when CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 45 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
the suit property was given to defendant no.1 for residence, he alongwith his family used to sometimes live in the suit property and sometimes in property 5-C/40 New Rohtak Road. Similarly his other three brothers also used to live in the suit property and sometimes at 5C/40, New Rohtak Road, Delhi.
72. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that he got married in the year 1975, and could not state how many years prior to his marriage, the defendant no. 1 got married. He further stated that his other two brothers are elder to him and one is younger to him. The younger brother was married in the year 1980, but could not recollect when his other two brothers got married. He denied the suggestion that at the time of said settlement, his father had also settled the other house in gali no. 49, Regarpura, Delhi in favour of his brother Trilok Chand. He stated that the suit property measures about 50 sq yards and did not know if the other house in gali no. 49 also measured about 50 sq yards. He stated that he had not measured the plot area of 5-C/40 New Rohtak Road and therefore cannot state it's plot area, and stated that it may be around 200 or 250 sq yards. He further stated that he could not deny that the area of the plot at New Rohtak Road is of 270 sq yards. He stated that the CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 46 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
said property at Rohtak Road was purchased by his mother and after the death of his mother the said property vested in his father by virtue of a will left behind by his mother.
73. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that the original will of his mother Late Smt. Chameli Devi was also with the defendant no. 1, and denied the suggestion that he was falsely deposing on this aspect. He further denied the suggestion that by virtue of the settlement, the property at New Rohtak Road was settled by his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta in favour of the defendant no. 2, himself and his deceased brother Sh. Naresh Kumar (represented by defendant no. 3 to 6) and he retained one share thereof for himself.
74. He further stated that there were four -five tenants in the property at New Rohtak Road and did not remember up to what period the said property remained in possession of tenants. He further stated that even after the death of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, there were three tenants in the said property at New Rohtak Road, however did not remember the rent paid by them after CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 47 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
the death of his father. He stated that none of the tenants paid any rent after the death of his father to any of them and that the tenants are not in occupation of the said property since the last about 15-20 years. He stated that the possession from the tenants was taken jointly by the defendant no.2, Vinod Gupta, Naresh Gupta, defendant no.1 and himself.
75. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that he was in possession of the left side of ground floor and half of the second floor of the said property at New Rohtak Road. The other half portion on the ground floor is in possession of the defendant no.2. He further stated that half of the first floor of the said property is with defendant no.7 and remaining half is in possession of Naresh Kumar. The other half on the second floor is with Vinod and Naresh. He further stated that the Defendant no. 1 is not in possession of any portion of the said property and the same is only with the persons as mentioned above.
76. He further stated that alongwith the three tenants who existed at the time of death of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, the rest of the portion of the said CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 48 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
property at Rohtak Road was in possession of Vinod Gupta, defendant no.2, Naresh Gupta and himself and the four of them were in physical possession of different portions of the said property. He stated that at the time of existence of said three tenants, he was in possession of only one room at the first floor; defendant no.7 was also in possession of one room at first floor; Naresh Gupta was in possession of one room at first floor and the defendant no.2 was also in possession of one room at the first floor and rest of first floor was common with all the four brothers. He stated that the whole of the ground floor was with two tenants and the second floor was with the third tenant, but could not recollect the names of any of them. He stated that the said three tenants vacated the said property at different times. He stated that he shifted to the ground floor in the year 1989 or so and even after occupying the ground floor and half of the second floor, the portion of the Ist floor remained with him. He further stated that he handed over the first floor portion to his younger brother Naresh Kumar Gupta, but could not say when this was so done. He stated that he did not know with whom the portion which was in occupation of the defendant no.2 remained, when he shifted to the ground floor and also did not remember when the defendant no.2 shifted CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 49 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
to the ground floor. He also did not know when his other brother shifted. He further stated that the second floor is lying vacant and the liveable accommodation is only in ground floor and first floor. He stated that nobody apportioned the portion of the 2nd floor to him. Same is my reply with respect to the other half portion at 2nd floor. He denied the suggestion that all the four brothers referred above have the right and access to the second floor of the said property at Rohtak Road. He admitted that the defendant no.1 is not in possession or occupation of the said property at Rohtak Road.
77. He denied that after the receipt of the reply Ex. PW-1/D3 from the defendant no.1, he approached the defendant no. 1 and represented to him that the defendant no. 1 was right and he had no grievance to the fact stated in his aforesaid reply and accepted the same and in order to avoid any future controversy, and therefore the defendant no. 1 to executed the relinquishment deed in his favour with respect to the rights in the property at New Rohtak Road and stated that the reply by the defendant no.1 was also wrong. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that since the defendant no. 1 himself told him that he shall settle the matter soon, he took no legal recourse. He further CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 50 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
stated that it was during the said period that the defendant no. 1 sold the suit property in July, 2010 and after 5-7 days the same purchaser has re-conveyed the suit property to defendant no. 1 after the purchaser came to know that will had already been cancelled. Thereafter, the cross-examination of the plaintiff/PW-1 by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 was completed and his further cross-examination by the other defendants was deferred.
78. The plaintiff/PW-1 was next cross-examined on 15.07.2013 by the ld. Counsel for the defendants no. 2 - 6, during which he stated that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had left behind two properties i.e, 5-C/40, Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and property no. 3792, Regarpura, Gali No. 20, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (suit property). He further stated that his father had executed a will with respect to both properties in the year 1983 which was later on cancelled/ revoked by him in March, 1984. He further stated that no partition has been taken place with respect to the aforesaid properties and other movable properties amongst the legal heirs of his late father. The plaintiff/PW-1 further stated that in the suit property, he and the defendant no.1 had put their lock and the property in question is not in possession of CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 51 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
any legal heir of his late father, Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. He further stated that the other property situated at Rohtak Road, Delhi is in possession of himself and the defendant no. 2 to 6, however the defendant no. 1 has already relinquished his share in the property of Rohtak Road in his favour. He further stated that he had already filed a partition suit with respect to the property situated at Rohtak Road, Delhi. He stated that in the partition suit filed by him before the High Court with respect to 5-C/40, Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, he had not claimed any partition of the suit property, i.e. 3792, Regarpura, Gali No. 20, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as the defendant no. 1 had already sold out the said property to a third party fraudulently. He stated that all the legal heirs have share in both the properties left by his late father and volunteered that the defendant no. 1 had relinquished his share with respect to the property no. 5-C/40, Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in his favour. Further Smt. Urmila, d/o Late Smt. Raj Dulari had relinquished her share in both the properties in his favour. He stated that except the above two properties, no movable or immovable property of his late parents exists for partition amongst their legal heirs. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 52 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Evidence of summoned witness Surjan Singh, record keeper, Sub-Registrar office as PW-2
79. The plaintiff examined Sh. Surjan Singh, Assistant Record Keeper, Sub- Registrar-IlI, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi as summoned witness PW-3, who deposed on 20.11.2012 that he had brought the summoned record relating to cancellation of Will dated 09.03.84, which was already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1 and stated that it was registered as document no. 849 in Additional Book No. 3 Volume No. 269 on Page 49 and stated that Ex. PW1/1 tallies with the copy available on the record brought by him. He further stated that he had also brought the summoned record relating to the sale deed already exhibited as Ex.PW1/5, which was registered as document no. 7469 in Additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 13774 on page 146-155 and the aforesaid document Ex. PW1/5 tallies with the copy brought by him today.
80. PW-2 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 on 20.11.2012 itself, during which he stated that the document Ex. PW1/1 was not registered in his presence nor was he associated with its registration. He CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 53 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
stated that he could not tell on what basis Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was identified before the Sub-Registrar concerned. He also admitted that the certificates on the reverse of Ex. PW1/5 did not bear the signatures concerned Sub-Registrar at point A and B. He also admitted that the documents are not posted simultaneously at the time of the presentation of the document and the whole process is effected subsequently. He stated that he could neither affirm nor dent that the signatures and thumb impression at point C and D and signatures at point E are not of Chander Bhan.
81. The plaintiff closed his evidence on 15.07.2013 and the present suit was listed for the evidence of the defendants.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE DEFENDANTS Evidence led by the defendant no.1 Evidence of Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta/defendant no.1 as DW1X:
82. The defendant no.1 stepped into witness box as DW-1, who is presently being referred to as witness DW1X (in order to avoid confusion as inadvertently, the defendant no.2 is also referred to as witness DW-1 in the CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 54 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
judicial record). He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-1/A on 17.05.2014, in which he reiterated the contentions of his written statement, which are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. He relied on the following documents in support of his case:
a. DW-1/D1, DW-1/D2, DW-1/D3. DW-1/D1, DW-1/D2, DW-1/D3
83. The defendant no.1/DW1X was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff during which he deposed that the suit property bearing no. 3792, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was purchased by his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta. He stated that he did not have any document to show that the suit property was given to him by his father in the year 1960, and volunteered to state that the document of settlement of the year 1960 is in the possession of the plaintiff. He further stated that in the year 1960, the plaintiff 6 - 7 years old. He stated that it is correct that since the plaintiff was a child in the year 1960, he may not be in the possession of the settlement of 1960 written by their father. He also affirmed as correct that the lease of the aforesaid property was executed by DDA in favour of their father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta on 08.11.1963 and that the suit property CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 55 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
is still a leasehold property and stands in the name of their father.
84. The defendant no.1/DW1X further stated that their father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had executed a will dated 30.05.1983, Ex. PW-1/D1, as per which the suit property was given to him and another property bearing no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi was given to the other brothers. He also stated that as per the will, he did not have any share in the property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that their father had cancelled the will dated 30.05.1983, Ex.PW-1/D1 by means of the cancellation deed, Ex.PW-1/1 on 09.03.1984. He also denied the suggestion that he came to know of the cancellation of the will, Ex. PW-1/1 in the year 1984 itself. He admitted that he had executed a a relinquishment deed dated 26.02.2010 in favour of plaintiff in respect of his 1/7th undivided share in the property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh. He further stated that he had no knowledge that his sister Smt. Urmila Singhal, w/o Sh. N.S Singhal had executed any relinquishment deed dated 12.07.2005 in respect of her undivided 1/7th share in the suit property and property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 56 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
85. The defendant no.1/DW1X also admitted that he had executed a registered sale deed duly registered in favour of Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Aarti Gupta, however could not recall the date. He further stated that the said sale deed was not executed on the basis of the will of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta dated 30.05.1983. He further stated that the plaintiff took a relinquishment deed from him and simultaneously gave a photocopy of an affidavit in his favour admitting him as the exclusive owner of the suit property and represented that the original affidavit would be given to him after registration. He further stated that he had not placed on record the copy of the title documents on the basis of which he had executed the sal I have not placed on record copy of title documents on the basis of which he had executed the sale deed in favour of Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Aarti Gupta.
86. He further stated that he had no knowledge whether the copy of the affidavit given by the plaintiff to him had been placed on record or not. He further stated that the said affidavit was given by the plaintiff in the same year in which the plaintiff took the relinquishment deed from him and that original of the said affidavit had not been given to him till date and only the CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 57 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
photocopy of the same was handed over to him. He stated that he did not send any legal notice demanding the return of the original affidavit from the plaintiff since the year 2010. However, had sent a notice, Ex. DW-1/2 to the plaintiff for producing the same in the present proceedings, and did not whether his counsel had received any reply of the notice, Ex. DW-1/2. He further stated that as he never had any knowledge of the cancellation deed, the same was never challenged by him in a court earlier.
87. He further stated that Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Aarti Gupta had re- conveyed the suit property to him due to some internal disputes. He denied the suggestion that Ex.DW-1/1 i.e. copy of the affidavit did not bear the signature of the plaintiff.
88. The defendant no.1/DW1X denied receiving notice dated 20.12.2005 sent by the plaintiff and others, with respect to the suit property and denied the suggestion that he had received the same and had also placed the same on record as Ex. PW-1/D2. He also did not know whether his advocate had sent reply bearing reference no. RSK 02/2006 dated 17.01.2006, which is CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 58 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
already Ex.PW-1/D3.
89. The defendant no.1/DW1X further stated that the Panchnama and settlement of the year 1960 are the same. He further stated that the evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.DW-1/A was got prepared by him. He further stated that he had no knowledge as to whether the suit with respect to property 5- C/40, New Rohtak Road, Delhi was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and admitted that he had recently filed an affidavit in the High Court in the said suit about 4-6 months back. He affirmed as correct that the property bearing no. 4668, Gali No. 49, Regharpura, Karol Bagh was sold by his father.
90. He denied the suggestions that he had no right to sell the suit property. He further denied the suggestion that the Will Ex.PW-1/D1 had been cancelled by Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta by means of Ex.PW-1/1. He also denied the suggestion that he came to know of the factum of the cancellation of the will in the year 2005 by means of Ex.PW-1/D2 and Ex.PW-1/D3. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 was discharged as a witness.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 59 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Evidence led by the defendant no.2 Evidence of Sh. Mohas Dass Gupta/defendant no.2 as DW-1:
91. The defendant no.2 stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex DW-1/X in which he reiterated the contentions of his written statement, which are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
92. The defendant no.2/DW-1 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff during which he stated that the suit property No. 3792, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was purchased by his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta and after his death it has devolved upon all his legal heirs. He further stated that the suit property was given to Radhey Shyam Gupta, by means of Will Ex.PW1/D1. However, Ex.PW1/D1 was subsequently cancelled by his father, by means of registered cancellation deed already exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. After cancellation of the will, property no. 3792 is the joint property. He stated that their sister Smt. Urmil Singhal, my sister has not challenged her relinquishment deed Ex.PW1/3. He further CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 60 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
stated that the defendant no. 1 Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta had no right to sell the suit property. He further stated that he was not aware that aforesaid property was re-conveyed to the defendant no. 1 and only came to know of the said fact after the receipt of notice in the present suit. He reiterated that the suit property was a joint property and denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Thereafter, he was discharged as a witness. Evidence led by the defendants no. 3 - 6
93. No evidence was led by the defendants no. 3 - 6 in the present suit. Evidence led by the defendant no.7 Evidence of Smt. Neera Gupta, wife of the defendant no.7 as DW-3:
94. The wife/guardian ad litem of the defendant no.7, Smt. Neera Gupta examined herself as DW-3 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW3/X on 07.02.2014.
95. The DW-3 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff during which she stated that she was aware of the facts of the case and CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 61 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
affirmed that the suit property was a joint property. She also affirmed that Smt. Urmil Singhal has not challenged her relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/3 till date. She also affirmed that her husband is the joint owner of the suit property. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
96. Sh. S.C Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has duly proved the cancellation of the Will dated 30.05.1983 of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta vide his deed of cancellation dated 09.03.1984, hence, the sale deed dated 17.07.2010 be declared as cancelled and the suit be decreed as sought. On the other hand, Sh. R.S Kela, ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 has submitted that in the connected suit, the plaintiff has failed to prove the cancellation of the Will of late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, hence, the suit be dismissed.
ISSUE-WISE DECISION AND REASONS Issue no.4
97. I shall first decide issue no.4, which is reproduced below for the sake of CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 62 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
convenience:
4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
98. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration that the suit property is the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendants and that the sale deed dated 17.07.2010 executed by Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta in favour of the defendant no.1 is null and void, along with decree of permanent injunction and costs of the suit. In para no. 16 of the plaint, the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 16,00,000/-, which is the value of the suit property mentioned in the sale deed dated 7.07.2010. Further, the plaintiff has claimed to be in joint possession of the suit property as well.
99. The defendant no.1 in his written statement has denied that the plaintiff has valued the present suit correctly, however has neither pleaded nor proved the said correct valuation of the suit himself. The defendant no.2 has stated in para no. 3 of his preliminary objections that the valuation of the suit property is incorrect as the suit property was actually sold by defendant no.1 CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 63 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
to Sanjay Gupta and Arti Gupta for Rs. 1.6 cores, however the sale deed has been executed for only Rs. 15 lakhs only. The defendant no.2 also has not proved the said contention as no documentary proof of the same has been provided by him. The defendants no. 3 - 6, while supporting the plaintiff on merits, have also claimed in para no.1 of the preliminary objections that the value of the property is more than Rs. 6 crores, however the defendants no. 3 - 6 have also not proved the same in evidence.
100. Further, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration of the sale deed 17.07.2005, Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR) as null and void. A perusal of the same reveals that the sale consideration mentioned in the said sale deed is only Rs. 16,00,000/-. Hence, the plaintiff has correctly valued the present suit at Rs. 16,00,000/-. Further, as the plaintiff has pleaded that he is in joint possession of the suit property, he is only required to pay fixed Court Fees under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule to the Court Fees Act, 1870.
101. Accordingly, the issue no.4 is decided against the defendants.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 64
Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Issue no.5
102. I shall next decide issue no.5, which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
103. The defendant no. 2 has stated in para no.4 of the preliminary objections to the present suit that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta have not been impleaded by the plaintiff, i.e. Smt. Urmil Singhal and LRs of another sister late Smt. Raj Dulari.
104. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has claimed the suit property, i.e. property no. 3792, Khasra no. 2033, Block K, Gali No. 20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005, to be the property of his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, who is stated to have expired intestate, as he had cancelled his registered will dated 30.05.1983 vide a registered deed of cancellation dated 09.03.1984. The plaintiff has also pleaded that his CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 65 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
sister Smt. Urmil Singhal had executed a relinquishment deed dated 12.07.2005 , whereby she has relinquished her 1/7th share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants. Further the plaintiff has also pleaded that Smt. Urmila, daughter of his sister Late Smt. Raj Dulari, has also relinquished her 1/7th share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, it cannot be said that as per the plaint, Smt. Urmil Singhal and Smt. Urmila are necessary parties to the present suit.
105. Accordingly, the issue no.5 is decided against the defendant no.2. Issues no. 1 - 3
106. I shall next decide issues no. 1 - 3, which are being reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration thereby declaring the property bearing no. 3792, (Khara No. 2033), Gali No. 20, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as joint property of the plaintiff and the defendants? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration thereby declaring the sale deed dated 17.07.2010 executed by Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Aarti Gupta in favour of defendant no.1 qua suit property bearing no. 3792, (Khasra No. 2033), Gali No. 20, CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 66 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi registered as document no. 7469, Additional Book no. 1, Volume no. 13774, Pages 146 to 155 as null and void? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendant no. 1 permanently from selling, alienating and transferring the property bearing no. 3792, (Khasra No. 2033), Gali No. 20, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on the basis of the sale deed dated 17.07.2010.? OPP
107. As already pointed out earlier, the plaintiff has also instituted another civil suit titled as 'Ram Kishore Gupta vs Mohan Dass Gupta and Ors', bearing CSDJ no. 616132/16, which has also been disposed off vide a judgment of even date. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that the other property of Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta, i.e. property no. 5-C/40, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi is the joint property of the plaintiff and his brothers. In the said suit as well, the plaintiff has claimed that his father Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta was the owner of the said property along with the present suit property. It is further alleged that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had executed a will dated 30.05.1983, which was subsequently cancelled by him vide a registered cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984, hence Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta has expired intestate CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 67 Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
and the parties are entitled to succeed to the properties as co-sharers. In the said suit the following issues, amongst others, has been framed for consideration:
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
108. Vide judgment of even date passed in the aforementioned suit, i.e. 'Ram Kishore Gupta vs Mohan Dass Gupta and Ors', bearing CS DJ no. 616132/16, the issue no.6 has been decided against the plaintiff herein and this Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Late Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had cancelled or revoked the will dated 30.05.1983 vide the cancellation deed dated 09.03.1984. Further, this Court has also come to the conclusion that in the said will dated 30.05.1983, the present suit property, i.e. property no. 3792, Khasra no.2033, Block K, Gali no.20, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi has been bequeathed to the defendant no.1. Hence, as a consequence of the same, the issues no. 1-3 are decided against the plaintiff.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 68
Ram Kishore Gupta v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
Relief
109. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusions, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Judgment be uploaded forthwith after corrections.
JITEN Digitally signed
by JITEN MEHRA
MEHRA Date: 2026.01.24
16:57:54 +0530
Announced in the open court. (JITEN MEHRA)
Dated: 24.01.2026 DISTRICT JUDGE-10 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
CS DJ no. 616761/16 Page 69