Delhi District Court
Satish @ Bunty vs Bhakat Ram Chug on 24 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI M JAIN : DISTRICT JUDGE-05,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ 502/17
CNR No. DLSW01-0055722017
Sh. Satish @ Bunty,
S/o Late Sh. Chaman Lal,
R/o Gali no. 4, Birbal Nagar,
Narwana, District Jind, Haryana
Presnetly in Delhi ... Plaintiff
Versus
1) Sh. Bakhat Ram Chug
S/o Late Sh. Jhangi Ram,
Presently Residing At
House No. 853, Mohalla,
Haibatpura, Som Bazar Chowk,
Najafgarh, New Delhi -110044
2) Sh. Sant Lal,
S/o Sh. Budhram,
R/o 24/06 Block No. 17,
Gandhi Nagar, Rohtak
3) Sh. Surender Kumar
S/o Sh. Chiman Lal,
R/o House No. 15, Barrak No. 16,
Ward No. 6, Gandhi Nagar,
Rohtak, Haryana.
4) Sh. Ashok Kumar,
S/o Sh. Chiman Lal,
R/o House No. 15, Barrak No. 16,
Ward No. 6, Gandhi Nagar,
Rohtak, Haryana.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 1 of 44
5) Smt. Santosh
W/o Sh. Jagdish Lal Punjabi,
R/o Sarathi Bungalow,
Panchwati Area, Kalol,
District - Gandhinagar,
Gujarat. ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 24.05.2017
Date of Arguments : 08.01.2024
Date of Judgment : 24.08.2024
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PARTITION
JUDGMENT
INDEX FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................2 ISSUES ....................9 EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PARTIES ....................10 SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ....................15 ISSUEWISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ....................18 CONCLUSION ....................44
1. Present suit for declaration seeking Will dated 25.11.1999 purported to have been executed by Late Ram Lubhaya in favour of defendant no. 1 illegal and invalid and partition filed by the plaintiff against defendant.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Briefly stated, Sh. Ram Lubhaya is the paternal uncle (tau) of the plaintiff who was issue-less and left for heavenly abode on 08.04.2007 and at the time of his death he was residing at 853, Mohalla Haibatpura, Som Bazar Chowk, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110044. It is further averred that, Smt. Prakash Wanti, the wife of Sh. Ram Lubhaya was predeceased. It is further CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 2 of 44 averred that, at the time of death of Sh. Ram Lubhaya was owner of the following immovable properties.
i. Shop bearing no. 15, area measuring 110 sq. yards (approx), Bahadur Ghar Road, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi.
ii. Property bearing No. 853, area measuring 141 sq. yards (approx) Mohalla Haibatpura, Som Bazar Chowk, Najafgarh, New Delhi- 110044.
iii. One Plot with area measuring 240 sq. yards (approx) situated as Jawahar Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi. (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Properties").
3. It is further averred that, at the time of his death, Shri Ram Lubhaya had the following class-II legal heirs:-
i. Two surviving younger brothers namely Sh. Chiman Lal who is father of the plaintiff and other is Sh. Sant Lal who is paternal uncle (chacha) of the plaintiff and impleaded as defendant no. 2 ii. One surviving sister namely Smt. Santosh, impleaded as defendant no.
5.
4. It is further averred that, Sh. Chiman Lal died on 09.02.2008 and he is survived with three sons namely Satish Kumar (plaintiff), Surender Kuar (Defendant no 4) and Ashok Kumar (Defendant no. 4). It is further averred that, after the death of Sh. Chiman Lal the plaintiff, defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 are the legal heirs of Late Sh. Chiman Lal and are entitled to get share in the suit property.
5. It is further averred that, as per Hindu Succession Act, 1955 the plaintiff and defendants no. 2 to 5 fall under the category of Class-II LRs and CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 3 of 44 therefore they are entitled to have their respective shares in the suit property. It is also stated that, at the time of death of Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya, he had above said three surviving brothers and sisters, therefore, each of them will have 1/3 share in the assets and properties left behind by Sh. Ram Lubhaya at the time of his death. Therefore, the plaintiff, the defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 will jointly have 1/3rd share in the above said suit properties and the defendant no. 2 will have 1/3rd share and defendant no. 5 will have 1/3rd share in the above said suit properties. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share in the above said suit properties. It is further averred that, defendant no. 1 avoided providing the documents of the properties of Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya which were in his possession.
6. It is further averred that, on 17.08.2014 the plaintiff along with the defendants no. 2 to 4 had a meeting with the defendant no. 1 in respect of the above mentioned properties left behind by Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya but defendant no. 1 denied the rights of the LR of Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya in the suit properties and provided the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 to 4 a photocopy of WILL dated 25.11.1999 allegedly executed by Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya in favour of Sh. Bhakat Ram i.e. defendant no. 1. The perusal of the said WILL revealed that, the said WILL is purported to have been executed by Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya in favour of defendant no. 1 and is a registered document bearing document no. 8118, in additional Book No. III, Volume No. 68, on page no. 162, dt. 25.11.1999 with the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Distt, No. VIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi is a forged and fabricated document as prior to 17.08.2014 defendant no. 1 never denied rights of plaintiff and other LRs of Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya in the suit properties nor talked about the above said WILL.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 4 of 44
7. It is further averred that, the abovesaid WILL dt. 25.11.1999 though is purported to be a registered WILL, however, the same is fabricated and manipulated document as the signatures on this WILL are manipulated. The perusal of the said WILL shows that, the same has been registered at the office of Sub-Registrar at Geeta Colony, Delhi which is approximatly 50 KM away from Najafgarh and there are four to five Sub-Registrar offices including the office at Janak Puri, Nangloi, Pitam Pura, Rohini, Kashmere Gate etc. It is further averred that, one the attesting witness to WILL is an Advocate who has his office at Sub-Registrar Office at Pitampura whereas the WILL is registered at Geeta Colony for registration of the said WILL which could have been easily done at Pitampura except in case of ulterior motive for the same he got the same manipulated at Geeta Colony Sub- Registrar Office.
8. It is further averred that, defendant no.1 in collusion with other persons has fabricated the above said WILL dt. 25.11.1999 for causing wrongful gains to himself and wrongful loss to the plaintiff and other LRs i.e. defendant no. 2 to 5. It is also stated that, with malafide intention defendant no. 1 fraudulently taken into possession all the documents of suit property of Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya into his possession and is depriving the actual legal owners i.e. plaintiff and defendant no. 2 to 5 from their lawful right in the suit properties.
9. It is further averred that, the plaintiff made a complaint dt. 02.11.2014 against defendant no. 1 and his accomplice for executing a forged WILL to the SHO PS Najafgarh Delhi vide DD No. 40-B dt. 02.11.2014 but no action was taken against him. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint bearing CC No. 62/2015 in the court of Ld. MM, U/s. 156 (3) CrPC, CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 5 of 44 however, the same was ultimately dismissed by Ld. MM on 26.08.2016 as the dispute is primarily civil in nature. It is further averred that, the WILL dt. 25.11.1999 purported to have been executed by Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya is forged and fabricated and is liable to be declared as null and void. Plaintiff is entitled for 1/9th share in the suit properties left behind by Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya and same shall be distributed among all the class-II LRs.
10. It is further averred that, on inquiries from the property dealers it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that, defendant no. 1 is trying to dispose of the suit properties. It is also stated that, defendant no.1 has right to alienate, sell or transfer the suit properties or create any third party interest in the suit properties. Defendant no. 1 is the rightful owner of the suit properties and the above said forged and the fabricated WILL dt. 25.11.1999 do not confer any right, title or interest in favour of defendant no. 1 qua the suit properties and plaintiff is under threat that, defendant no. 1 may sell, alienate or transfer or create third party interest in the suit property.
11. The summons of the suit were issued to all the defendants appearance has been entered on 10.07.2017 on behalf of defendant no. 1 only. As despite service no appearance has been entered on behalf of defendant no. 2 to 4 despite service, they were proceeded ex-parte on 10.07.2017. However, an application u/o IX Rule 7 CPC filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 to 4 for setting aside the ex-parte order which was allowed and appearance has also been entered on behalf of defendant no. 5.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT NO. 1:
12. It is stated in the WS of defendant no. 1 that the suit of the plaintiff is time barred as he has knowledge of the Will since 2007 executed CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 6 of 44 by Late Ram Lubhaya in favour of defendant no. 1 and that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Hon'ble Court, as the plaintiff has not disclosed about his complaint 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as its dismissal by the Hon'ble Court of Ld. ACMM, Dwarka Courts New Delhi, vide order dated 26.08.2016. It is further stated that the plaintiff is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Court while filing separate address i.e. in complaint case address of the Rohtak (Haryana) is given while in the present suit the plaintiff has given the address of Narwana (Haryana) because the plaintiff wants to conceal the shares in the Kothies left by his father and the shares which have been devolved on the plaintiff which have the value Crores of rupees. It is further averred that in Narwana the plaintiff is having his business boxes making and selling million rupees in a year. It is further stated that the verification of the suit as well as the applications are not accordance of the law as affidavits of applications at page No. 12, 17 and page no. 20 have been verified at the address of Bangalore and not at the address of Delhi, hence the jurisdiction of the court is ousted, as the addresses of Narwana (Haryana) have been given on the main suit as well as in the applications while affidavits of applications have been verified at Bangalore. It is further stated that in the title of the suit the plaintiff has sought the relief of partition along with declaration and not of possession, hence the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in this way because it is an admitted case the plaintiff that neither he nor of any member of his family is in the possession of the properties in question and that plaintiff has not put the correct description of the properties as well as their site plans.
13. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not impleaded the other LRs of late Budh Ram as the other two daughters of late Budh Ram have not been impleaded as defendants in the suit, hence the suit of the plaintiff is bad CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 7 of 44 for non-joinder of the necessary parties. It is further stated that the property No. 853, measuring 225 Sq. Yards, is the joint property of Late sh. Ram Lubhaya as well as the defendant no. 1 as a Conveyance Deed was executed by Shri N.P. Nigam, from the then Managing Officer from the office Acquired Evacuee Property, Delhi, on behalf Hon'ble President of India as an Executor/Vendor dated 26.12.1961 in the joint name of defendant no. 1 and Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya and same was registered vide Registration No.1016, Book No.1, Volume No.204, Pages 291 to 294 dated 24.03.1962 in the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi, hence defendant No. 1 is the co-owner of House No. 853 in equal share and late Ram Lubhaya executed the WILL dated 25.11.1999 by which he had bequeathed his entire immoveable properties to the defendant No. 1 including this house. It is submitted that defendant No. 1 is co-owner of the property mentioned in Sub-Para (ii) of the plaint and Sachin Kumar is the exclusive owner and in possession of Shop No.15, measuring 67 Sq. Yards Road, on owner and in total area Bahadurgarh Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh and measurement 110 given by the plaintiff is totally wrong, rather the shop is built up and admeasuring 67 Sq. Yards. The electricity connection of the shop is also in the name of Sachin Kumar. It is further submitted that, late Ram Lubhaya never owned plot measuring 240 sq. Yards at Jawahar Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi as describe in Sub-Para
(iii) of Para 2 of the plaint, rather it is a house No. 62 which is jointly purchased and owned by Late Ram Lubhaya and defendant no. 1 vide Sale Deed dated 12.02.1963 in equal share in sum of Rs.6,500/- from Shri Raghu Nath Sahay S/o Shri Kirorl Mal and Shri Raghuvir Sharan s/o Shri Chandan Lal, R/o Najafgarh, New Delhi. It is further stated that the plaintiff as well as his uncle and his sons i.e. plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 were apprised of the WILL executed by late Ram Lubhaya in favour of the defendant No. 1 in the month of August, 2007 when the plaintiff as well as defendants No.2 to 5 CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 8 of 44 visited the house of the defendant and a copy of the WILL of late Ram Lubhaya dated 25.11.1999 was given to the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to
5. He further denied all the contents of the plaint.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT NO. 2 TO 5:
14. Although vide order dated 14.10.2017 Written Statement stated to have been filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 to 5 but, same is not available on record. Ld. counsel for defendant No. 1 submits that, defendant No. 2 to 5 are in connivance with plaintiff and have supported the claim made by him.
He further submitted that, he is only contesting defendant and matter may be proceeded accordingly.
15. Replication to the written statement of defendant No. 1 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, thereby, reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the plaint.
ISSUES
16. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2017 :-
i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD-1 ii. Whether the suit has been undervalued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee? OPD iii. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD iv. Whether the Will dated 25.11.1999 purported to have been executed by Late Ram Lubhaya is illegal and invalid, if so, its effect? OPD v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration, declaring the aforesaid Will as null and void? OPP CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 9 of 44 vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition, as prayed for ?
OPP vii. Relief.
EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PARTIES
17. In support of its case, plaintiff examined four witnesses. Plaintiff Satish @ Bunty examined himself as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and has relied upon following documents:-
Sl. Documents Exhibits
No.
1. Copy of site plan Mark A
2. Copy of complaint dt. 02.11.2014 made to SHO, Mark B
PS Najafgarh vide DD No. 40-B
PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and discharged. He was not cross-examined by defendant no. 2 to 5 despite opportunity given.
18. HC Sita Ram examined as PW2 who brought the records of complaint made by Satish S/o Sh. Chaman Lal vide DD no. 40-B dt. 02.11.2014. PW2 was not cross-examined by Ld. Respective Counsels for defendants.
19. Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. O P Gupta, Head Clerk, Property Tax Department, MCD, South, Kakrola Mor, New Delhi was examined as PW3 who brought the following documents:
Sl. Documents Exhibits
No.
1. The mutation letter dt. 12.03.2008 Ex.PW2/1
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 10 of 44
2. Application dt. 10.03.2008 for mutation of the Ex.PW3/2 (colly.)
property no. 15, Block-A, Area measuring 67 running in 12 pages
sq. ydss, Shah Mandi, Najafgarh, Delhi along
with indemnity bond affidavit, specimen
signature and copy of GPA, agreement to sell,
affidavit and receipt dt. 12.04.1999 executed by Om Prakash in favour of Sh. Ram Lubhaya in respect of the above said property 3 Copy of Will dt. 25.11.1999 submitted by Bhagat Ram Chug along with his application Mark X and Mark for mutation X1 (copy of Will filed by plaintiff and copy of will filed by defendant which are already on record are same as brought by PW3) PW3 was not cross-examined by Ld. Respective counsels for defendants.
20. HC Jagdish examined as PW-4 who has brought the following document:-
Sl. Documents Exhibits No. 1. Copy of relevant page of complaint register Ex.PW4/1
PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and discharged. He was not cross-examined by defendant no. 2 to 5 despite opportunity given. Thereafter, plaintiff closed its evidence and the matter was listed for defendant's evidence.
21. In support of his case, defendant No. 1 examined the eight witnesses. Defendant Bhakat Ram Chugh examined himself as DW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and relied upon following documents:
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 11 of 44 Sl. Documents Exhibits No.
1. Copy of Conveyance Deed dt. 26.12.1961 Ex.DW1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of sale deed of H.No. 62, Jawahar Ex. DW1/2 Chowk, Najafgarh along with certified copy of its Hindi translation
3. Original electricity bill in the name of Sachin Ex. DW1/4 Kumar
4. Certified copy of Will dt. 25.11.1999 Mark X1
5. Copy of Report Peshabandi dt. 26.01.2009 Mark X2
6. Copy of Report Peshabandi dt. 28.02.2009 Mark X3 DW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff at length and discharged.
22. Sh. Deepak Kumar, Computer Operator, office of the Sub- Registrar-8, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031 examined as DW2 who brought the following documents:
Sl. Documents Exhibits No.
1. General Power of Attorney bearing document Mark A-1/DX-1 No. 7901, Additional Book No. 4, Volume No. 124 at pages 142 to 144 dated 25.11.1999 executed by Ram Lubhaya in favour of Bhakat Ram Chugh
2. Register bearing Volume No. 68, Book No. 3, Ex. DW2/1 operational from 19.11.1999 to 26.11.1999 containing Will bearing document No. 8118 registered on 25.11.1999 of Sh. Ram Lubhaya S/o Sh. Budh Ram DW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and discharged.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 12 of 44
23. Sh. Surinder Singh, Mauja Clerk, Record Room (Criminal) Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi examined as DW-3 who brought the following documents:
Sl. Documents Exhibits
No.
1. Complete case file of complaint case bearing Mark DW3/X1
CC No. 62/15 titled as "Satish @ Bunty vs. (Colly.) running in
Bakht Ram Chugh' consigned vide Goshwara 57 pages
No. 316/16, PS Najafgarh
DW3 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff despite opportunity given.
24. HC Sita Ram, examined as DW-4 who brought the following documents:-
Sl. Documents Exhibits No.
1. Copy of order dt. 23.10.2015 of the Office of Mark DW4/X1 the Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-West District, New Delhi vide which record in respect of year 2009 and 2011 pertaining to the complaints of the lost documents and other complaints have been weeded out DW4 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff despite opportunity given.
25. Sh. Ram Swaroop S/o Late Sh. Ishar Dass examined as DW-5 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW5/A. DW5 was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff at length and discharged.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 13 of 44
26. Sh. Bhushan Kumar S/o Sh. Bhakat Ram Chugh examined as DW-6 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW6/A. DW6 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff at length and discharged.
27. Sh. Dinesh Dua, Advocate, No. D/834/91, Office at A-1/69, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110089 examined as DW-7. DW-7 was shown the GPA i.e. Mark A1/DX-1 from the court record to which he states that, this is the same GPA, which was registered at the office of Sub-Registrar Geeta Colony along with the Will and same bears his signature at point B and bears the signatures and thumb impression of Ram Lubhaya at point A and signature of Munish Kumar at point C. The said GPA is exhibited as Ex.DW7/1. DW7 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff at length and discharged.
28. Sh. Munish Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash examined as DW8. DW8 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff at length and discharged.
29. Sh. Krishan Lal S/o Sh. Sant Lal examined as D2W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D2W1/A. D2W1 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff despite opportunity given. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and discharged.
30. Sh. Surender Kumar S/o Late Sh. Chaman Lal examined as D2W2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D2W2/A. D2W2 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff despite opportunity given. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and discharged.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 14 of 44
31. Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
32. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that, since Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya left for heavenly abode without any Class-I legal heir, defendant no. 1 took advantage of this situation and fabricated frivolous Will in his favour which cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that, no original Will brought before this court by defendant no. 1 and stated to had been lost. It is further submitted that, Will i.e. Ex.DW2/1 is forged and fabricated as bearing various discrepancies. Firstly, testator was residing at Najafgarh while Will i.e. Ex. DW2/1 was registered at Geeta Colony which is approximately 50 KM away from the Najafgarh and there are almost 4-5 Sub-Registrar offices en-routed to Geeta Colony. But, no explanation given by defendant no. 1 that why said will was executed at such a distant. Secondly, Ex.DW2/1 is a manipulated document with forged signature. Thirdly, immovable properties are not specifically described /defined in Ex. DW2/1, in fact only description of property no. (ii) was given. Fourthly, during evidence it is proved that Ex. DW2/1 was drafted/prepared by defendant no. 1 who is a nephew. Hence, onus is upon him to prove the genuineness of Ex.DW2/1 being its propounder. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
1. K. Laxman V/s Thekkayil Padmini and Others (2009) 1 SCC 354;
2. Apoline D'Souza V/s John D'Souza 2007 (7) SCC 225;
3. Ragini Chopra V/s Rajesh 2013 (134) DRJ 316;
4. Rakesh Mohindra V/s Anita Beri and Others 2016 (16) SCC 483;
5. Baljinder Singh V/s Rattan Singh 2008 (16) SCC 785;
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 15 of 44
33. It is further stated that Ex. DW2/1 could not be proved by defendant no. 1, hence cannot be relied upon. Infact, attesting witnesses are related to the beneficiary. Thus, execution of alleged Will is suspicious.
Lastly, it is submitted that scheduled properties may be divided as per the claim made in the plaint.
34. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant disputed the claim made by the plaintiff. It is submitted that present suit is without any cause of action and court fees and same is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. It is also submitted that in the present suit, plaintiff nowhere seeking relief of possession and claimed only declaration and partition, which is not maintainable as admittedly defendant is in possession of the suit property. It is also submitted that the Shop bearing no. 15, measuring 67 sq. yards, Bahadur Ghar Road, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi is exclusively owned by Mr. Sachin Kumar. Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya does not have any right, title or interest qua that shop. It is also submitted that, property bearing no. 853, area measuring 225 sq. yards Mohalla Haibatpura, Som Bazar Chowk, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110044 was jointly owned by Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya and defendant no. 1 vide conveyance deed dt. 26.12.1961 i.e. Ex. DW1/1 and same was bequeath in favour of defendant No. 1 vide registered Will i.e. Ex.DW2/1. It is further submitted that, no such plot of 240 sq. yards exists in favour of Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya, hence, present suit filed by the plaintiff has no merit. It is further submitted that, present suit was filed in May 2017 while defendant no. 1 filed his WS in July 2017 thereby given clear description of scheduled property but it is first time in 2024 plaintiff given affidavit for clear description of scheduled properties which is not permissible under law as a person cannot fill up the lacuna at subsequent stage. In a partition suit, correct description of the property is essential and cannot be cured.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 16 of 44
35. It is also submitted that, plaintiff has given his different address in the pleadings and affidavit which is not trust worthy as same was purportedly made to save the court fees by taking vague plea u/o XXXIII of CPC. It is also submitted that, in its plaint, plaintiff averred that on 17.08.2014 he had met with defendant no. 1 w.r.t the property left behind by Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya but failed to prove this fact in his evidence. No evidence given in above respect which clearly shows that the present suit is clearly barred by limitation as Will was executed on 25.11.1999 and plaintiff and other defendants were duly aware about the said fact but to bring the present suit into limitation, story of meeting in the year 2014 created. It is further averred that defendant no. 1 is claiming ownership qua the scheduled property no. (ii) by virtue of 2 documents i.e. Will Ex.DW2/1 and GPA Ex.DW7/1 but, till date Ex.DW7/1 is not challenged by plaintiff and other defendants. It is also stated that in his WS defendant no. 1 duly disclosed the ownership qua the scheduled property no. 1 in favour of Sh. Sachin Kumar but till date no efforts were made by plaintiff to correct that same. Lastly, it is stated that Ex.DW2/1 is valid document beyond any doubt and present suit may be dismissed with heavy cost. Ld. Counsel for defendant relied upon the following judgment in support of his contentions:
1. Winifred Nora Theophilus Vs Mrs Lila Deyal AIR Civil Suit No. 113/15; AIR 2002 Delhi 6, 2001 (62) DRJ 422;
2. Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel Vs Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari and Ors AIR 2010 SC 2132;
3. Prem Singh &Ors. Vs Birbal &Ors 2006 (5) SCC 353;
4. Ram Rati Devi Vs Radhey Shyam on 23 May, 2018, in RFA 444/2015 & CM APPLs. 11985-86/2015 & 11405/2017 Delhi High Court;
5. C.V.Raveencuran & others Vs C.G.Gopi & others AIR 2015 KERALA 250, the Division Bench of the Kerala High court;
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 17 of 44
6. Man Singh Son of Chohal Vs Dharam Singh Son of Munshi Singh on 27 March, 2006 Allahabad High Court 2006 (4) AWC 3453 ISSUEWISE ANALYSIS
36. At this juncture, it is imperative to reproduce pedigree relied upon by the plaintiff:
37. Since, present matter involve dispute with respect to multiple properties, thus, for the purpose of identification and clarification, it is also important to discuss schedule of the properties and claim made by the parties as follows :
S. Description of Claimed by Claimed by
Description given
No. property plaintiff as per defendant No. 1
by plaintiff as per
plaint affidavit dt.
08.01.2024
i Shop bearing no. Owned by Late correct measurement Measurement: same CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 18 of 44 15, area Sh. Ram is 67 sq. yards & as given by measuring 110 Lubhaya exclusively owned defendant no. 1 sq. yards by Sachin Kumar (approx), Bahadur Ghar road, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi.
ii Property bearing Owned by Late Jointly owned by same as given by No. 853, area Sh. Ram Late Sh. Ram defendant no. 1 measuring 141 Lubhaya Lubhaya and sq. yards defendant No. 1 (approx) Mohalla Haibatpura, Som Bazar Chowk, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110044.
iii Plot with area Owned by Late Not existing. Infact same as given by measuring 240 Sh. Ram Late Sh. Ram defendant no. 1 sq. yards Lubhaya Lubhaya was joint (approx) situated owner of H.no. 62, as Jawahar admeasuring 250 sq. Nagar, yards at Jawahar Najafgarh, New Nagar, Najafgarh Delhi.
Issue No. 1: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD-1
38. Article 58 read with Article 59 of Limitation Act provides that period of limitation is 3 years to obtain declaration and to cancel or set aside and instrument i.e. from the date of right to sue first accrued or when the facts entitle the plaintiff who has the instrument cancelled or set aside. In present matter, registered Will claimed to have been executed on 25.11.1999 while present suit filed beyond the prescribed period of 3 years i.e. on 24.05.2017. But, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff averred that, it came to know about impugned registered Will only on 17.08.2014.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 19 of 44
39. Section 17 of the Limitation Act 3, which deals with the effect of fraud and mistake. Thus, when the plaintiff relies on Section 17(1) (b) of the Limitation Act asserting fraud or mistake, he has to state the date on which he has discovered the fraud or mistake, and also state that he could not have discovered the fraud or mistake with reasonable diligence on a date earlier than on which he has based his cause of action
40. The general principle, which also manifests itself in Section 17 of the Limitation Act, is that every person is presumed to know his own legal right and title in the property, and if he does not take care of his own right and title to the property, the time for filing of the suit based on such a right or title to the property is not prevented from running against him. The provisions of Section 17(1) embody fundamental principles of justice and equity, viz. that a party should not be penalized for failing to adopt legal proceedings when the facts or the documents have been wilfully concealed from him and also that a party who had acted fraudulently should not be given the benefit of limitation running in its favour by virtue of such frauds.4
41. Perusal of record reveals no material on record to show any alleged meeting held on 17.08.2014 as claimed by plaintiff in its plaint. For the purpose of clarification, relevant content of the plaint is reproduced here- in-below:
"8. That in these circumstances, on 17.08.2014 the Plaintiff along with the Defendant No. 2 to 4 had a meeting with the defendant no. I in respect of the abovementioned properties left behind by Shri Ram Lubhaya. But to the utter shock and surprise of the Plaintiff, the Defendant no. 1 for the first time in the said meeting denied the rights of the legal heirs of Late CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 20 of 44 Sh. Ram Lubhaya in the suit properties and provided the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 to 4, a photocopy of WILL dated 25.11.1999 allegedly executed by Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya in favour of Sh. Bakhat Ram i.e. Defendant No. 1. The perusal of the said WILL revealed that the said WILL is purported to have been executed by Shri Ram Lubhaya in favour of Defendant No.1 and is a registered document bearing Document No.8118, in additional Book No.III, Volume No.68, on page No.162, dated 25.11.1999 with the Sub-
Registrar, Sub-Distt. No. VIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi."
42. Although, entire plaint is completely silent about place, time or detail of meeting. But during cross-examination PW1 stated to have received the copy of the Will only on 17.08.2014 and this fact could not be disprove by defendant no. 1. In view thereof, present suit cannot be held barred by limitation. As such, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue No. 2: Whether the suit has been undervalued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee? OPD
43. In the present matter, plaintiff is seeking declaration qua registered deed as null and void and partition of the property left by Sh. Ram Lubhaya, thereby valuing suit as follows:
"23. That the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee for the relief of declaration is valued at Rs 200 and an appropriate court fee of Rs 20/- is payable. The present market value of the entire suit property is approximately Rs 1,80,00,000/- and value of 1/9 share of the suit property is Rs 20,00,000/- approximately. For the relief of partition the suit is valued at Rs 1,80,00,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and for the purpose of court fee the suit is valued at Rs 20,00,000/-
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 21 of 44 i.e the value of the share of the plaintiff in the suit property and an appropriate court fee payable is Rs 21,864/-. It is submitted that the present suit is being filed by the Plaintiff in the capacity of an Indigent person and the Plaintiff has moved a separate application for the same. Therefore, no court-fee has been paid."
44. Record also reveals that, vide order dated 23.09.2017 Ld. Predecessor of this court allowed plaintiff to sue as indigent person u/o XXXIII CPC. Thus, valuation and court fee aspect was already looked into by Ld. Predecessor of this court. Further, onus of above issue was on defendant but no evidence brought on record by defendant to show that the present suit is undervalued and deficient court fees has been paid. In view thereof, issue no. 2 is also decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 3: Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD
45. It is well settled law that, no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.1
46. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others2 held as follows:
1 9. Misjoinder and non-joinder.--No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.
[Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.] 2 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3109 CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 22 of 44
8. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (`Code' for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:
"Court may strike out or add parties. (2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."
47. In present matter, plaintiff is seeking 1/9th share in the scheduled properties by claiming as Class-II Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya. Admittedly, Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya was having two brother and three sisters and LR of two sisters i.e. Late Smt. Ram Pyari and Late Smt. Satya Devi are not included to the array of the parties who are necessary party to the present proceedings.
48. In Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma3 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
i. The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born 3 AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3717 CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 23 of 44 before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.
ii. The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.
iii. Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.
49. Thus, LR of two sisters i.e. Late Smt. Ram Pyari and Late Smt. Satya Devi are necessary party to present proceedings. It is well settled law that, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.4 As such, this court can implead LR of two sisters i.e. Late Smt. Ram Pyari and Late Smt. Satya Devi as necessary party to present proceedings in case, it is proved that Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya owned suit properties and died intestate leaving behind class II legal heirs and same 4 Order I Rule 10 CPC: Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.--
(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 24 of 44 is adjudicated by this court in subsequent paras. This issue in disposed off accordingly.
Issue No. 4: Whether the Will dated 25.11.1999 purported to have been executed by Late Ram Lubhaya is illegal and invalid, if so, its effect? OPD Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration, declaring the aforesaid Will as null and void? OPP
50. Before going ahead, it is imperative to refer the law for Declaration and Cancellation.
51. Section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 5 deals with cancellation of documents. The purpose of cancellation of instruments under the Specific Relief Act of 1963 is to serve justice to the parties who are in a fear of being harmed or are actually being harmed by the other party due to the performance of such instrument/contract. Cancellation of documents/instruments means the nullification of a written document which is proof of a transaction between the parties.
52. Section 34, Specific Relief Act6 provides that a suit against any person denying or interested to deny the plaintiffs' title to the legal character or right to any property can be filed. To obtain the relief of declaration the plaintiff must establish that (1) the plaintiff was at the time of the suit entitled 5 31. When cancellation may be ordered.-- (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
6 34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.--Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 25 of 44 to any legal character or any right to any property (ii) the defendant had denied or was interested in denying the character or the title of the plaintiff,
(iii) the declaration asked for was a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a legal character or to a right to property (iv) the plaintiff was not in a position to claim a further relief than a bare declaration of his title. It is a discretionary relief.
53. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. V Regency Mahavir Properties, Civil Appeal No 5147 of 2016 observed that document though not necessary to be set aside may, if left outstanding, be a source of potential mischief. The jurisdiction under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (which is the pari materia provision to section 31 of the 1963 Act) is a protective or a preventive one. It is to prevent a document to remain as a menace and danger to the party against whom under different circumstances it might have operated.
54. Similarly, in Suhrid Singh V Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. In Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd (supra), it was observed that the expression "any person" does not include a third party, but is restricted to a party to the written instrument or any person who can bind such party. It was further observed as under:
"The incongruous result of section 31 of the Specific Relief Act being held to be an in rem provision. When it comes to cancellation of a deed by an executant to the document, such person can approach the Court under section 31, but when it comes to cancellation of a deed by a non-executant, the non- executant must approach the Court under section 34 of the CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 26 of 44 Specific Relief Act, 1963. Cancellation of the very same deed, therefore, by a non-executant would be an action in personam since a suit has to be filed under section 34. However, cancellation of the same deed by an executant of the deed, being under section 31, would somehow convert the suit into a suit being in rem."
55. In the present matter, plaintiff is seeking declaration qua registered Will dt. 25.11.1999 to be declared as illegal, null and void. Main contentions of the plaintiff is three fold. Firstly, Ex. DW2/1 is forged and fabricated. It is submitted that, Ex. DW2/1 is manipulated document on the face of it, as the signatures are manipulated. Secondly, aforesaid Will has been registered at the Sub-Registrar Office at Geeta Colony which is 50 KM away from the residence of Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya i.e. Najafgarh which raise suspicion. Thirdly, defendant no. 1 is in collusion with other person and fabricated above Will.
56. But, to prove Ex. DW2/1 defendant no.1 examined as much as following four witnesses:
Witness Particulars Relevant Fact
DW2 Deepak Kumar, Registration of Will
Computer Operator,
Sub-Registrar Office
DW6 Bhushan Kumar Lost of original Will
DW7 Dinesh Dua Advocate and witness to the Will
DW8 Monish Kumar Second witness of the Will
57. Apart from above four witnesses, defendant no. 1 examined four more witnesses to prove existence of Ex.DW2/1 as well as complaint against plaintiff. Relevant testimony/cross-examination of DWs are reproduced here- in-below:
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 27 of 44 Relevant cross-examination of DW2:
"It is wrong to suggest that the document i.e. Will is not properly pasted in the concerned Volume.
Court Observation: Perusal of the register brought by the witness reveals that the Will Ex. DW2/1 in the concerned register is little bit unpasted.
XXXXX It is correct that volume containing Will in question has photocopies of the photographs on all the Wills except the Will in question where there is original photograph pasted on it. The Will in question is a computer print. It is wrong to suggest that all other documents are photocopies in the said Volume. It is wrong to suggest that the signature on the front portion of the Will in question and on its back are different. It is wrong to suggest that the records of Sub-registrar have been manipulated and the Will in question has been pasted after manipulation of the record. I do not know who was the Sub-registrar at the relevant time. It is correct that the signature of the Sub-registrar on the Will in question and on the next document in the volume bearing document no. 8119 dated 25.11.1999 are different. Voltr. The Sub-Registrar might have changed/transferred. It is wrong to suggest that the signatures are different on the next document also.
I have brought the Peshi Register of 25.11.1999. The relevant page is not tagged in the said register. Voltr. There are other pages are also which are untagged. The name of Ram Lubhaya is appearing at srl no. 95 in Peshi register of 25.11.1999. It 2 is wrong to suggest that the said pages of 25.11.1999, which are untagged, have been manipulated."
Relevant cross-examination of DW6:
"It is wrong to suggest that I alongwith my father and Sh. Dinesh Dua and Mr. Manish have manipulated the records of the office of Sub-Registrar Geeta Colony. It is wrong to suggest that by manupulating the records of Sub-Registrar, Geeta Colony, I alongwith abovesaid persons, pasted one Will and one GPA in the records of Sub-Registrar instead of two other documents which were already on record after the death of Sh. Ram Lubhaya. It is CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 28 of 44 wrong to suggest that since no original documents i.e. GPA and Will were prepared, therefore, a false plea has been taken that the originals have been lost. It is wrong to suggest that from the said manipulated records, we have obtained a certified copy so that the originals may not be verified. Voltr. No such manipulation has been done by me and other persons. I do not know where the original GPA has gone.
Ques: Where is the original Will?
Ans: The original Will has been misplaced by me. I took the Will to get it seen by some sensible person and in that process, the same has been misplaced from my scooter.
I took the original Will to show it to one Mr. D.P. Puri, the then Public Prosecutor in Ghaziabad, U.P. I have taken the photocopy documents of the property also alongwith the said documents. I have taken the original Will as it was to be shown in original. I went to him to show the original Will as the plaintiff was running behind us with the goons and we wanted to take safety. Whenever the plaintiff threatened me with the goons, I made police complaint and the same are on record.
Relevant examination-in-chief of DW7:
"I am a summoned witness. Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya came to my office on 08.11.1999 and he told me that he wants to get a Will of his property executed. Thereafter, I took the details of his property form him and asked him in whose favour he wants to execute the Will. He told me that he wants to execute the Will of H.No. 853, Najafgarh as a co-owner of the said property alongwith other movable and immovable properties in favour of his brother- in- law Sh. Bhakat Ram Chugh (Saala) then thereafter, I prepared the documents. Thereafter, he told me that he wants to get the documents read over by somebody. I prepared the documents without putting any date and the column of the date was left blank Ques: I put it to you whether any other document apart from this Will was got prepared by Sh. Ram Lubhaya on 08.11.99? (objected to by the counsel for the plaintiff being a leading question).
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 29 of 44 Ans: A General Power of Attorney was also got prepared in favour of Bhakat Ram Chugh.
The documents were handed over to Sh. Ram Lubhaya on 08.11.1999. On 25.11.1999 in the morning Ram Lubhaya came to my office. I asked Sh. Ram Lubhaya as to whether he has read the contents of the Will and other cuments. He told me that he has got those documents read and he is satisfied with the documents. Even then, I read over and explained the contents of the said documents to him in Hindi. Thereafter, he has signed and put his thumb impression before me. Thereafter, Mr. Munish Kumar i.e. witness no.1 of the Will has also signed and put his thumb impression in my presence. Thereafter, I also signed and put my stamp on the said Will as an Advocate. Ex. DW2/1 (objected to by the counsel for the plaintiff) is the said Will which bears the signature of Sh. Ram Lubhaya at point A and bears my signature at point B and the signature of Mr. Manish Kumar at point C. Thereafter, I advised Sh. Ram Lubhaya to get it registered at Sub-registrar office, Pitampura. However, he refused to get it registered in the Sub- registrar office, Pitampura. He stated that he has to get it registered from some remote area as he stated to be frightened with his brothers and nephews. Thereafter, I suggested him to get it registered from Sub-registrar office, Geeta Colony. I stated him that I and the other witness Munish Kumar are busy and therefore, he left for Geeta Colony to get it registered. After lunch i.e. 2:00 PM, I alongwith other witness Manish reached the office Sub- registrar Geeta Colony and thereafter, the Will and GPA were registered in the said office.
At this stage, witness is shown the GPA i.e. Mark A1/DX-1 from the court record to which he states that this is the same GPA, which was registered at the office of Sub-registrar Geeta Colony alongwith the Will and same bears my signature at point B and bears the signature and thumb impression of Ram Lubhaya at point A and signature of Munish Kumar at point C. The said GPA is now marked as Ex. DW7/1. (Objected to by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff for want of original of the said document)."
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 30 of 44
58. Infact, during entire cross-examination, testimony of DW7 remained consistent with the deposition given in chief by him. His relevant cross-examination is reproduced here-in-below:
Relevant cross-examination of DW7:
"In the year 1999, I was practicing Advocate in the field of property documentation at QU-224, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. We had five working days in the office but we usually used to go on Saturday's also. In the year 1999, besides me and one computer operator, there were three more persons working in my office. On 08.11.99, Sh. Ram Lubhaya visited my office at about 10.30 AM. On 08.11.99, during discussions with Ram Lubhaya, apart from me, Mr. Manish and other staff members were also present in my office. The discussions took place in their presence. Mr. Manish used to come at 10-10:15 AM in our office and he was present in the office before arrival of Mr. Ram Lubhaya on 08.11.99. I do not remember what day of the week was on 08.11.99. On 08.11.99, our office was open and we got documents also registered on the said day. I do not know. if 07.11.99 was a working day of our office or not. I do not remember if we used to maintain the register of visitors and drafting of documents during that time. After perusing the documents, I recollected that he came to our office on 08.11.99. It is correct that it is not mentioned in the Will that Sh. Ram Lubhaya visited my office on 08.11.1999 or the same was drafted on 08.11.1999. Voltr. We have purchased stamp papers on the same day. It is correct that the Will is not executed on the stamp papers. My office remains close on festivals and gazetted holidays. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Ram Lubhaya never visited my office on 08.11.1999. I do not remember what was the occasion or day on 07.11.99, 08.11.99 and 09.11.99. I do not know if 07.11.1999 was a holiday on account of Diwali and 08.11.1999 was a holiday on account of Goverdhan. Voltr. My office was open on 08.11.1999. It is wrong to suggest that my office was not open on 08.11.99."
XXXXXX It is wrong to suggest that the date of making/drafting of the Will has not been mentioned on the Will as 08.11.99 as it was not made CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 31 of 44 or drafted on the said day. It is wrong to suggest that the date in the last column in the Will has not been mentioned as the same has not been signed on 25.11.99 or I have not signed on 25.11.99. Sh. Ram Lubhaya has signed this Will in my presence on 4-5 places. I do not know from whom Sh. Ram Lubhaya intended to get the Will read over and explained to him while he took the Will from my office on 08.11.99. It is correct that the said person has not read and explained the Will to Ram Lubhaya in my presence. The printout of the Will which was taken by Ram Lubhaya on 08.11.99 was brought by him on 25.11.99 in my office in unsigned condition. When he brought the Will, we pasted his photo on the same and got it photocopied and thereafter, it was signed by Ram Lubhaya on the original as well as on photocopy and also on the back side of the Will on original as well as on photocopy. His thumb impressions were also marked by him. It is wrong to suggest that Ram Lubhaya has not signed or put his thumb impressions in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I have not signed this Will in the presence of Ram Lubhaya and Mr. Manish. The photocopy with original signature is prepared for retaining by the office of Sub-registrar as a records in their office. It is wrong to suggest that no photocopy was prepared. It is wrong to suggest that I in connivance and collusion with defendant no.1, Manish forged the Will in question and got the same placed in the record of Sub-registrar by manipulating the same.
It is correct that the Will is a secret document and even the certified copy of the same is not given by the office of Sub- registrar, prior to the death of testator. I have not discussed with Sh. Ram Lubhaya that there is no need to worry about the place of registration of Will as the Will cannot be given to anybody prior to his death. I suggested Sh. Ram Lubhaya to get the Will registered in Pitampura office but he refused and said that he want to get the same registered in remote area. I did not try to make him understand that there is no harm in getting the Will registered at Pitampura. It is wrong to suggest that the facts narrated by me in my examination in chief about the reasons for registration of Will at Geeta Colony is my concoction. I reached at Geeta Colony office at about 3:00 PM. The Will was not presented for CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 32 of 44 presentation before I reached at Geeta Colony office. It is wrong to suggest that I never visited the Geeta Colony office for the presentation or registration of the Will.
I have not maintained any register in my office regarding delivery of documents to my client at that time.
XXXXXX Ques: I put it to you that the Will Ex. DW2/1 is purported to have been signed by Sh. Ram Lubhaya at three places. Which signatures were put by Sh. Ram Lubhaya in your presence and at which place the same were signed?
Ans: The signatures at point A, D & E were affixed by Sh. Ram Lubhaya on the Will Ex. DW2/1 at my Pitampura office in my presence.
It is correct that the signatures at points D & E should have been in the presence of Sub-registrar at the time of presentation of the documents. It is wrong to suggest that these signatures were not affixed in the presence of Sub-registrar as this document was forged. By my deposition that Sh. Ram Lubhaya signed at 4-5 places on the Will, I mean that he has also signed on the photocopy meant for the records of the Sub- registrar office. Three signatures were affixed by Sh. Ram Lubhaya on the photocopy of the Will in my presence at Sub- registrar office. When the document is presented for deposit of the fees of registration, the original as well as duly signed photocopy of the Will is submitted in the office of Sub-registrar. It is correct that the fees for registration is deposited prior to 1:00 PM. In the present case also, it was deposited prior to 1:00 by Ram Lubhaya. When the document was presented for deposit of fees, it was bearing signatures of Sh. Ram Lubhaya on the original as well as photocopy. Voltr. It was only on the front page. The signatures on the back page of the original and photocopy of the Will were affixed by Ram Lubhaya in the office of Sub-registrar prior to the deposit for registration fees. Again said. The said signatures on the back portion of the Will were affixed before the Sub-Registrar. It is wrong to suggest that the signatures on the back portion were not affixed in my presence by Ram Lubhaya.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 33 of 44 Sh. Ram Lubhaya has affixed his thumb impressions at three places on the original Will at points F, G and H before the Sub- registrar office. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at that time.
In the year 1999, Sh. Ram Lubhaya was of 71 years old. It is wrong to suggest that in the year 1999, Sh. Ram Lubhaya has no capacity of understanding. Voltr. He was active and came of his own. It is correct that the Sub-registrar has not read over the explained the Will to Sh Ram Lubhaya in my presence or otherwise. Voltr. He asked Sh. Ram Lubhaya what was he doing to which Ram Lubhaya answered that he was executing the Will in favour of his brother-in-law".
Relevant examination-in-chief of DW8:
"I am a summoned witness. On 08.11.1999, Sh. Ram Lubhaya came to our office at Pitampura. He told me and Sh. Dinesh Dua, Advocate that he wants to get the Will executed in the name of Sh. Bhakat Ram in respect of property no. 853 and other movable and immovable properties and bank balances also.. On 08.11.99, we drafted GPA and Will and handed over the same to him. He told us that he wants to get the same read over by someone. He left alongwith the said documents and came back on 25.11.1999. We got the documents i.e. GPA and Will signed from Sh. Ram Lubhaya. Thereafter, I signed the said documents and thereafter, Mr. Dinesh Dua signed the said documents. The Ex. DW2/1 (Objected to by counsel for the plaintiff) is the same Will which was executed by Sh. Ram Lubhaya bearing his signature at point A. My signatures are at point C and signature of Sh. Dinesh Dua is at point B. These documents were signed at out Pitampura office.
At this stage, witness is shown the GPA Ex. DW7/1 from the court record to which he states that this is the same GPA, which was registered at the office of Sub-registrar Geeta Colony alongwith the Will and same bears my signature at point C and bears the signature and thumb impression of Ram Lubhaya at point A and signature of Sh. Dinesh Dua at point B. CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 34 of 44 Thereafter, we advised him to get the said documents i.e. GPA and Will registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Pitam Pura, but he refused to get it registered at Pitampura office and he told me that he wants to get it in a far of area as he is afraid of his brothers and nephews, Thereafter, I and Mr. Dua gave him an option to get it registered at Kashmere Gate but he refused. Thereafter, I and Mr. Dua gave him an option of Geeta Colony to which he agreed. Thereafter, I and Mr. Dua told him that we do not have time and I and Mr. Dua hired an Auto for him for Geeta Colony and explained the address to Auto driver to leave him at Sub-registrar, Geeta Colony office. Thereafter, I and Mr. Dua instructed him to deposit the requisite fee for registration of the said documents and asked him to request the Registrar that his witnesses will come late. Thereafter, after finishing the work in our office, I and Mr. Dua reached to Geeta Colony office on a scooter and got the documents i.e. GPA and Will registered. A".
Relevant cross-examination-in-chief of DW8:
"In the year 1999, I was working as a Documentation Writer with Mr. Dinesh Dua, Advocate at QU-224, Pitan Pura, Delhi. I was also getting the documents such as GPA, Agreement to sell, Will etc drafted and registered. I was Clerk in the office of Sh Dinesh Dua, Advocate. I was residing at that time in Ward No.6, Gandhi Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana. I used to commute by train from Rohtak to Pitampura and used to reach around 9.45 AM. My office working days were Monday to Friday. Our office was also opened on Saturday but I used to remain on leave mostly on Saturday. It is correct that I did not use to come to the office on gazetted holidays and on festivals etc. Defendant no.1 is my Fufaji. Fufaji The defendant no.1 contacted me once prior to the receipt of the summons from this Court. However, at that time, I could not come to the court as my father expired. I was told by defendant no.1 that some frivolous suit has been filed by the plaintiff against him. Alongwith the summons for appearance, I received a copy of Will in question only. It is wrong to suggest that I did not receive the copy of the Will alongwith CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 35 of 44 summons, The summons were received by Sh. Dinesh Dua, Advocate after confirmation from me. It is correct that I was aware of the fact prior to recording of my examination in chief that a dispute has been raised by the plaintiff in the present suit that the Will is fabricated as Sh. Ram Lubhaya was living in Najafgarh and the Will was registered at Geeta Colony, Sub- registrar office. It is correct that for the aforesaid reason, I have give the explanation in my examination in chief as to why the said Will has been registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Geeta Colony. It is wrong to suggest that my explanation to this effect is concocted. In the year 1999, there were six staff members including Mr. Dua in the office of Mr. Dua. The Will used to be drafted by Mr. Dinesh Dua and used to be typed by Mr. Mahender or Mr. Virender. I have no role in preparation of this Will. Sh. Ram Lubhaya came to my office on 08.11.1999 early morning prior to my reaching the office. It is wrong to suggest that no discussions on 08.11.1999 has taken place with Sh. Ram Lubhaya in our office in my presence. Sh. Ram Lubhaya stated in my presence that he wants to bequeath this property to my brother-in- law as he has looked after me for the entire life. Our office on 08.11.1999 was already opened when I reached the office at 9.45 AM and it was still open when I left the office at 6.30 PM. It was a working day. However, I do not remember the day of week of 08.11.1999. I do not remember if the office was opened on a day prior to this or not. It is wrong to suggest that on 08.11.1999 our office was closed and it was a holiday. I do not remember how many clients came on 08.11.99 as we do not use to maintain a register in our office. I remember the coming of Mr. Ram Lubhaya in our office on 08.11.99 as Stamp Vendor was also present on that day in his office. I do not recollect all the days whenever stamp vendor was present in his office, however, I recollect the fact of Ram Lubhaya coming to the office as he is a relative of defendant no.1. I do not remember the occasion on the day before 08.11.99 or on 08.11.99. I do not know whether on 07.11.99 it was Diwali festival and on 08.11.99 it was Goverdhan and on both days, there were gazetted holidays. It is wrong to suggest that the narration by CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 36 of 44 me in my examination in chief about the visit of Ram Lubhaya in the office on 08.11.99 is concocted.
On 08.11.99, I did not do any work on this Will. However, on 25.11.99, when Sh. Ram Lubhaya came alongwith this Will, I signed as a witness on this Will. Besides this, I have not done anything on 25.11.99 on the said Will. Again said, I prepared the Will for its presentation in the requisite format for registration of the Will in the office of Sub-registrar. It was the same print out of the Will, which was taken by Ram Lubhaya from our office. I got the original Will photocopied after pasting photograph of Ram Lubhaya so that it can be presented for registration. I have signed on the original as well as photocopy of the Will. Sh. Ram Lubhaya, Sh. Dinesh Dua and myself has signed on the original as well as photocopy of the Will. The photocopy of Will with original signature was prepared so that it may be retained in the office of Sub-registrar for records. I have brought the original of the Will in question from the office of Sub-registrar. However, I do not remember the date on which I have brought the original of the Will from the office of Sub-registrar. It is correct that we have maintained a register in our office for the purpose of delivery of documents and we obtained the signatures of our clients while delivering the documents. Voltr. We started maintaining this register from the year 2000 only. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in this regard as I do not intend to produce the register of the year 1999 as in the said register it would have been depicted that no such document was registered in the year 1999. Sh. Ram Lubhaya had not collected the registered original Will from our office, I went to his house to deliver the same. I do not remember the date when the same was delivered to Sh. Ram Lubhaya. When I delivered Will to Ram Lubhaya at his residence, my Bua was present in the house and I delivered the documents in her presence. Voltr. I delivered two documents. The Will was not brought by Ram Lubhaya in a signed condition on 25.11.99. I got it signed from Ram Lubhaya. I was aware of the contents of the Will and I have read the same. My qualification in 1999 was BA (second year). It is wrong to suggest that I do not understand the contents of the Will. I have not asked Sh. Ram CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 37 of 44 Lubhaya from whom he got this Will read over and explained to him. It is correct that it is not mentioned in the Will that the same has been made on 08.11.99. It is correct that the date has not been mentioned in the last para of Will where it is stated that it is signed in the presence of following witnesses and the column of the date has been left blank. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Ram Lubhaya has not signed the Will Ex. DW2/A in my presence. It is correct that whenever a document is presented before Sub-registrar and the parties appear, the Sub-registrar mentions the time of appearance of the parties on every document. It is correct that no time has been mentioned on the Will Ex. DW2/1 in respect of presentation and appearance of the parties. It is wrong to suggest that no time is mentioned as the document was never presented before Sub-registrar and the records of the Sub-registrar has been manipulated subsequently. It is correct that Sub-registrar has not read over and explained the Will in question to Ram Lubhaya in my presence or otherwise.
Sh. Ram Lubhaya has signed and put his thumb impresions on the Will in question 6-7 times in my presence in our office. Two signatures and thumb impressions were put on the front of the Will and four signatures and thumb impressions were put in the back of the Will. It is wrong to suggest that the Will in question has been fabricated by me, Bhakat Ram and Sh Dinesh Dua in connivance and collusion with each other.
I do not remember if we got any document register on 08.11.99 from our office. I have read the Will and also understand what is written in the said Will. It is correct the Will Ex. DW2/1, we have explained that the property shall mean 853, Mohalla Haibatpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi. When we prepared the Will in our office, we only see who has executed the Will and in whose favour it has been executed and the description of the property given in the Will. The para above last para in the Will has nothing to do. It is wrong to suggest that none of the signatures and thumb impressions on the Will in question has been put by Sh. Ram Lubhaya in my presence and signatures ad thumb impressions are forged. Mr. Dua asked Sh.Ram Lubhaya to give description of all the properties in the Will but it was stated by Sh. Ram Lubyaya CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 38 of 44 that it should be mentioned that my all movable and Simmovable properties. It is wrong to suggest that my deposition to this effect is false and in fact we intended to finish the Will in a pre signed page and therefore the description of all the properties was not given.
I reached at the office of Sub Registrar Geeta Colony at about 2.30-2.45p.m. on 25.11.1999. The Will was not presented for registration prior to my reaching to Sub Registrar office. It is correct that Will is a secret document and the certified copy of the same cannot be given to any one prior to the death of the testator. I have not made Sh. Ram Lubhaya understand on 25.11.99 in our office that he should not worry about the place of registration of the Will as the same is a secret document and the same cannot be provided to anyone prior to his death. It is correct that the office of the Sub-registrar was in the same vicinity approx 100-150 metres away where our office was situated in the year 1999. I have taken Ram Lubhaya to Geeta Colony for registration as he was so much terrified that he said that he did not want to get this document registered at Pitampura. It is wrong to suggest that he was not terrified and he never visited our office for drafting/registration of the Will.
It is wrong to suggest that I alongwith Sh. Dinesh Dua, Advocate got this Will placed in the records of the office of Sub- registrar, Geeta Colony by manipulating after death of Sh. Ram Lubhaya. It is wrong to suggest that Geeta Colony office was chosen by us as there was easy access for manipulation of the records. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Ram Lubhaya was not aware about this Will or the contents of the Will. Voltr. Sh. Dinesh Dua, Advocate read over and explained to him on 25.11.99 prior its registration at Pitampura office. It is wrong to suggest that I have not signed this Will in the presence of Ram Lubhaya and Sh. Dinesh Dua, Advocate.
I asked Ram Lubhaya why he intends to get the power of attorney executed. On my inquiry, Ram Lubhaya said he wants to give this property to Bhakat Ram during his lifetime as well as upon his CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 39 of 44 death. I do not know if the GPA and Will were made known to Bhakat Ram or not.
In GPA as well as Will, there are same properties. Sh. Ram Lubhaya has signed and put his thumb impressions on the GPA at 6-7 places. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Ram Lubhaya has not signed the GPA and the registration of the same has been manipulated in the office of Geeta Colony. It is wrong to suggest that the Will and GPA are forged and fabricated documents. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely being a relative of defendant no.1.".
PRINCIPLES FOR PROVING THE VALIDITY AND EXECUTION OF THE WILL:
59. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Meena Pradhan & Ors. V. Kamla Pradhan & Anr7, laid down certain principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will. In substance, these principles enunciated that apart from statutory compliance under Section 63 of the Succession Act8, broadly, it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution, he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances. It is held that:
7 2023INSC847 8 63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.--
Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:--
(a)The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
(b)The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.
(c)The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 40 of 44 '10. Relying on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 (3 Judge Bench), Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135 (3 Judge Bench), Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91(2 Judge Bench) Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 (3 Judge Bench) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277 (3 Judge Bench), we can deduce/infer the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will:
i. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him;
ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.
iii. A Will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:
(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will;
(b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;
(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;
(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required;
iv. For the purpose of proving the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;
v. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator; vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, the CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 41 of 44 examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with;
vii. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence; viii. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the Will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last Will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier.
ix. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will;
x. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence et cetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation.
xi. Suspicious circumstances must be 'real, germane and valid' and not merely 'the fantasy of the doubting mind' 1. Whether a particular feature would qualify as 'suspicious' would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance for example, a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the Will under which he receives a substantial benefit, etc.'
60. Thus, a careful perusal of the relevant material on record and applying the provisions and the case laws it is evident that the Will was duly executed by the testator namely Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya in the presence of witnesses out of his free Will in a sound disposing state of mind and the same CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 42 of 44 stands proven through the testimony of both witnesses i.e DW7 and DW8 who categorically stated that the testator executed the Will in question and the testator signed the Will in their presence. Thus, these issues are decided in favour of defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition, as prayed for ?OPP
61. `Partition' is a re-distribution or adjustment of pre-existing rights, among co-owners/coparceners, resulting in a division of lands or other properties jointly held by them, into different lots or portions and delivery thereof to the respective allottees. The effect of such division is that the joint ownership is terminated and the respective shares vest in them in severalty. A partition of a property can be only among those having a share or interest in it. A person who does not have a share in such property cannot obviously be a party to a partition.9
62. Thus, the foremost requirement for the suit for partition is whether scheduled property is owned by deceased. However, in the present suit no title documents produced on behalf of plaintiff. Infact, description of the suit property was incorrect which is in violation of order VII Rule 3 CPC.10
63. It is well settled law that, if one person is claiming the existence of any fact and same is denied by another person, then, burden of proof to 9 Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors (2009) 12 SCALE 259 10 Order VII Rule 3 CPC Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property.--Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers.
CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 43 of 44 prove that fact is upon the person, who claims its existence. 11 In present matter, Plaintiff failed to lead any evidence with respect to above averment made by him.
64. Infact, during the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that, he is adopting description given by defendant no. 1 in his WS and file affidavit w.r.t. the same which is not permissible. The entire suit of the plaintiff is based upon two documents i.e. site plan Mark A and copy of complaint dt. 02.11.2014 i.e. Mark B. No material placed on record by plaintiff to prove his contention, infact site plan found to be contradictory and could not be proved. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 7: Relief (Conclusion)
65. As plaintiff failed to prove his case, hence present suit stands dismissed.
66. No order as to cost.
67. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in open court on 24.08.2024 (SHILPI M JAIN) District Judge-05, South West District Dwarka Courts, New Delhi Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN M M Date:
JAIN 2024.08.24 06:27:53 +0530 11 Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558 CS No. 502/17 Satish @ Bunty Vs. Bhakat Ram Chug Page No. 44 of 44