Delhi High Court - Orders
Sunny Bhardwaj vs Janak Dulari Bhardwaj & Ors on 4 July, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~7 (SB) & item 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 109/2018&CM APPLs. 30168/2018, 70/2019
SUNNY BHARDWAJ ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohit K. Naagpal and Mr.
Dipanshu Gaba, Advocates.
(M:9873730191)
versus
JANAK DULARI BHARDWAJ & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Anand
Verdhan Maitreya and Ms. Nazia,
Advocates.
6 AND
+ CS(OS) 512/2021
SUNNY BHARDWAJ ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rohit K. Naagpal and Mr.
Dipanshu Gaba, Advocates.
versus
MASTER ANURAG BHARDWAJ (MINOR) ALLEGED S/O LATE
SHRI JAI BHAGWAN BHARDWAJ REPRESENTED THROUGH
HIS ALLEGED MOTHER SMT. JANAK DULARI
BHARDWAJAND ORS. .....
Defendants
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Anand
Verdhan Maitreya and Ms. Nazia,
Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 04.07.2022
1. These matters pertain to the Kalkaji Mandir, which this Court has been hearing from time to time. These are part-heard matters.
2. The present two matters relate to two adoptions carried out by Shri Jai RSA 109/2018&CS(OS) 512/2021 Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 16:43:55 Bhagwan and Smt. Janak Dulari Bhardwaj/Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (hereinafter "Plaintiffs").
3. RSA 109/2018 is a second appeal that arises out of the impugned order of the Appellate Court dated 28th May, 2018 in RCA DJ-80-2017 titled Jai Bhagwan Bhardwaj & Anr. v. Sunny Bhardwaj & Anr. Vide the said order, the first appeal against the Trial Court's order dated 12th July, 2017 in Suit No.93502/16 titled Jai Bhagwan & Anr. v. Sunny Bhardwaj & Anr., was allowed and the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs. The said Suit No.93502/16 had been filed by the Plaintiffs against Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj and Prem Lata/Defendants/Appellant & Respondent No.3 (hereinafter "Defendants"), seeking declaration and injunction in respect of an adoption deed.
4. The connected suit being CS(OS) 512/ 2021, has been filed by Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, challenging a second adoption by the same adoptive parents/Plaintiffs.
5. In the present second appeal, the substantial questions of law have been framed vide order dated 30th July, 2018. The relevant extract of the said order reads as under:
"6. However, the substantial questions of law cited at serial no.(c) to (g) are found to arise in this appeal. Additionally, following substantial questions of law are .also found to arise:
(i) Whether a wife is a necessary party to the deed of adoption.
(ii) On whom does the onus to prove consent of the wife to adoption , within the meaning of Section 7 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 lie i.e. whether on the adoptee or on the adoptive parent/s challenging the adoption."RSA 109/2018&CS(OS) 512/2021 Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 16:43:55
6. The substantial questions of law cited at serial nos. (c) to (g) of the paper book and reiterated in the above order dated 30th July, 2018 are as under:
"c. Whether Sub -Registrar discharging his duties under the Registration Act 1908 be doubted in discharging his statutory function ?
d. Can any registered document be discarded only because if one of the executant denies it signature on the same?
e. Does Registration Act & Delhi Registration Rules 1976 raises a presumption of person signing the same were present before the Concerned Sub Registrar and can same be discarded in cavalier manner; f. Can Co-Plaintiff have a different cause of action from other plaintiff which is not even pleaded in its Plaint, Replication or evidence affidavit? g. Can Statutory presumption under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance act can be reversed?"
7. The present dispute in the second appeal is between the Plaintiffs and Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, who claims to be the adopted son of the Plaintiffs and the biological son of Shri Jagdish Prasad (stated to be the uncle of Shri Jai Bhagwan). He places reliance upon a registered adoption deed dated 17th December, 1985, which is the subject matter of Suit No.93502/16, which was originally filed before the Trial Court and out of which the present second appeal arises. The said adoption deed was challenged by the adoptive parents of Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, i.e., the Plaintiffs, and the prayer in the suit was for declaration of the adoption deed dated 17th December, 1985, as null and void. It was prayed that the said deed ought to be treated as cancelled. The prayers in the said suit read as under:
RSA 109/2018&CS(OS) 512/2021 Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 16:43:55"It is, therefore, prayed to this Hon'ble Court that a Decree for Declaration may please be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, thereby declaraing the ADOPTION DEED dated 17,12.1985, records showing the name of plaintiff no.1 as father, documents forged by defendant no.l, null and void treated as cancelled, (Adoption Deed enclosed hereby)
ii). A Decree for Permanent Injunction may also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no.1 thereby restraining the defendant no.1, his agents, relatives, nominees etc from losing the name of plaintiff as parents in any office, records etc.
iii). Cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
iv). Any other relief or relief may also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, which this Hon'ble Court may deems, fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. "
8. The Trial Court had dismissed the said suit vide order dated 12th July, 2017. However, the Appellate Court, vide the impugned order dated 28th May, 2018 has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Thereafter, in the present second appeal, vide order dated 30th July, 2018, along with framing of the substantial questions of law, a stay was granted in the following terms:
"9. Till further orders, there shall be stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree but on the condition that the appellant / defendant also, in his capacity as the son of the deceased respondent no.2 / plaintiff and deceased respondent no.1 / plaintiff shall not act to the prejudice of the interest of the respondents no.1 &2/plaintiff."
9. In the present second appeal, after the framing of the substantial questions of law and the stay being granted, the Plaintiffs have filed an RSA 109/2018&CS(OS) 512/2021 Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 16:43:55 application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, seeking vacation of the said stay. The said application is also pending.
10. Ld. Counsels for the parties further submit that the adoptive parents/ Plaintiffs also had a biological daughter, Smt. Anju Bhardwaj/Respondent No. 2(ii). Subsequent to the execution of the adoption deed dated 17th December, 1985, it is not disputed between the parties that the son of Smt. Anju Bhardwaj has also been adopted by the same very adoptive parents in 2009. This second adoption of Mr. Anurag Bhardwaj, son of Smt. Anju Bhardwaj, has been challenged in CS (OS) 512/2021, by Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj.
11. Finally, ld. Counsels for the parties submit that all the parties belong to the Tula Tansukh. The share of Shri Jai Bhagwan in the baari, to the tune of 16.6% is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Shri Jagdish Prasad has 1/3rd share in the said baari. Both the parties agree that the baaris come, approximately, once in every 5+ years. Additionally, the shashmaahi baari comes once in approximately 8+ years and the londhbaari after every 11 years, for a period of one month. The next baari in this group is stated to be commencing from the midnight of 9th July, 2022 i.e., from 10th July, 2022.
12. Heard. At this stage, the dispute has arisen in respect of the shares in the forthcoming baari, as Shri Jai Bhagwan has passed away in 2015 and the question is whether Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, who claims to be the adopted son of the Plaintiffs, is entitled to a 50% share in Shri Jai Bhagwan's part of the baari. It is not in dispute that Smt. Anju Bhardwaj is entitled to the remaining 50% share of Shri Jai Bhagwan in the baari i.e., out of 16.6% share.
13. On a query put to the counsels, as to whether Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj has taken any shares in the baaris since the death of Shri Jai Bhagwan in 2015, ld.
RSA 109/2018&CS(OS) 512/2021 Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 16:43:55Counsels submit that since 2015, there have been three baaris: one baari in 2017, one londh baari in 2018 and one navratra baari in 2019. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that in 2017, Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj did not receive any share in the baari. In 2018 and 2019, according to the Plaintiffs, Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, in collusion with the auction purchaser of the baari i.e. Shri Lokesh Bhardwaj, was given a share, which according to the Plaintiffs, was illegal. This position is disputed by Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, who states that he received shares in the baaris in 2017, 2018 & 2019 validly.
14. As the commencement of the baari in dispute is imminent, i.e., in the next two days, the question before this Court today, is as to what should be the arrangement between the parties, that will apply during the forthcoming baari from 9/10th July 2022 to 8/9th August 2022.
15. The Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Naagpal, ld. Counsel for the Defendant and Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs.
16. Considering the interim order dated 30th July, 2018 already passed in RSA 109/2018, and the commencement of the baari on the midnight of 9th July, i.e., 10th July, in the above background, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:
(1) For the baari commencing on the midnight of 9th July, 2022 i.e. from 10th July, 2022 and ending on 8th/9th, August, 2022, the ld. Administrator, who is appointed by this Court, shall supervise the collection and maintenance of all the offerings, donations, dakshinaas etc. during this baari. (2) The said collections shall be divided 50-50 between Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj and Smt. Anju Bhardwaj, subject to the outcome of the present second appeal.RSA 109/2018&CS(OS) 512/2021 Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 16:43:55
(3) All parties shall also file the statements of accounts of all the baaris since the demise of Shri Jai Bhagwan in 2015, and the amounts which they have collected during the various baaris.
17. It is made clear that any amounts collected by Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj post the demise of Sh. Jai Bhagwan, shall be subject to the final outcome of this second appeal. Mr. Naagpal, ld. Counsel assures on behalf of his client, Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, that if the second appeal is decided against his client, his client undertakes to refund or pay the requisite amount, as may be directed by this Court, to the parties concerned.
18. Let an affidavit of undertaking to this effect be filed on behalf of Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, before this Court, within one week.
19. Ld. Administrator shall also file a specific report in this second appeal, on the question as to whether Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj has also been collecting his shares on behalf of his biological father Shri Jagdish Prasad or the biological family or has received any other benefits in the Kalkaji Mandir, as the biological son of Shri Jagdish Prasad.
20. At the final stage of the present matters, this Court shall also consider as to whether Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj would be entitled to 50% share, 1/3rd share (for each of Sunny Bhardwaj, Anju Bhardwaj and Anurag Bhardwaj) or no share at all, in Mr. Jai Bhagwan's share in the baaris.
21. It is also made clear that Smt. Anju Bhardwaj or any other female member in this baari, similarly, would be entitled to get the puja sewa conducted by any male member, as is the custom in the Kalkaji Mandir, and there shall be no impediment created in this regard.
22. List these matters for hearing on 3rd November, 2022, at 2:30 pm.
23. The present order shall be communicated to the ld. Administrator RSA 109/2018&CS(OS) 512/2021 Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 16:43:55 through his counsel, Ms. Samapika Biswal (M:9818668876).
24. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JULY 4, 2022/dk/ms RSA 109/2018&CS(OS) 512/2021 Page 8 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 16:43:55