Delhi District Court
Cs No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand vs . Chander Singh Page 1/73 on 30 May, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE09, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 13213/16
1. Shri Hukam Chand, now deceased through his legal
representatives :
[ Substituted vide order dated 24.11.1997 passed by
Joint Registrar in IA No.8065/1997 ]
a. Shri Harish Chand son of late Pt. Hukam Chand.
R/o 282, Village Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
b. Shri Naresh Chand son of late Pt.Hukam Chand.
R/o 3726, Salem Walk, North Brook Illinois, 60062,
U.S.A.
c. Shri Ashok Atree son of late Pt. Hukam Chand.
R/o H. No.282, Village Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
d. Shri K. Gopal Atree son of late Pt. Hukam Chand.
H. No.282,Village Masjid Moth, New Delhi49.
e. Shri Rajesh Sharma son of late Pt. Hukam Chand.
f. Shri Arvind Sharma son of late Pt. Hukam Chand.
R/o c209, Village Masjid Moth, New Delhi49.
[Substituted vide order dated 24.11.1997 passed by Joint
Registrarin IA No.8065/1997]
2. Shri Trilok Chand, now deceased, through his Legal
Heirs :
[ LRs substituted vide order dated 19.1.1995 in I.A.
No.417/1995 ]
a. Sh. Shiv Charan Attri.
b. Sh. Ved Parkash.
c. Sh. Hari Kishan.
d. Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma
All sons of late Shri Trilok Chand.
R/o H. No.279A, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
e. Sh. Sudhir Attri.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 1/73
2
f. Sh. Bharat Bhushan Attri.
Sons of late Shri Tek Chand @ Tilak Raj son of Trilok
Chand.
R/o H. No.279A, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
3. Shri Chet Ram Sharma son of Pt. Leela Ram,deceased
through L.Rs.
(Substitution allowed vide order dated 20.12.2014) :
(a) Shri B.D. Sharma son
B1/12, Haus Khas, New Delhi.
(b) Mayank Sharma. grandson
(c) Rajat Sharma. grandson
Both R/o Village 7 P.O. Mawana Kalan, Distt. Meerut,
UP.
4. Shri Dharam Singh son of late Pt. Leela Ram, deceased,
through his legal heirs, brought on record
vide order dated 19.1.1995 in IA No.7315/1994 :
a. Sh. Anand Kumar.
b. Shri Sushil Kumar.
c. Shri Mahender Kumar.
d. Shri Narinder Kumar.
e. Shri Lalit Kumar, deceased, through LRs. :
(i) Smt. Gir Raj. widow
(ii) Sh. Brijesh. son
(iii) Sh. Pawan Dev. son
(iv) Ms. Dolly. daughter
(v) Ms. Bharti. daughter
(vi) Ms. Hema Kaushik. daughter
f. Shri Rajesh Kumar.
g. Shri Davinder Kumar.
h. Shri Bankey Behari @ Vikas Attri.
All sons of late Shri Dharam Singh.
All R/o Village Chandiwali, P.O. Ballabhgarh, Distt.
Faridabad, Haryana.
5. Shri Prem Raj son of Pt. Lila Ram, deceased through L.Rs.:
[substituted vide order dated 9.9.2014]
a. Sh. Dinesh Sharma.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 2/73
3
b. Sh. Madhukar Sharma.
R/o 389A, Masjid Moath, New Delhi.
6. Shri Manohar Lal son of Pt. Lila Ram.
R/o Flat No.6, Tower A,
461, Village Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
7. Shri Ved Parkash son of Shri Trilok Chand Sharma
R/o 279A, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
8. M/s Kotla Private Ltd.
4/5B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. ... PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. Shri Chander Singh son of Shri Gordhan, deceased, through
LRs.
[brought on record vide order dated 8.7.1991 in I.A.
No.4090 of 1987 ]:
a. Kishan Chand Saini, deceased, died on 4.3.2008,
through L.Rs.
( substitution allowed vide order dated
20.12.2014 ):
(A) Smt. Santosh. widow
(B) Sh. Satish Kumar. son
(C) Mrs. Bala Devi. daughter
(D) Mrs. Saloni. daughter
(E) Mrs. Jyoti w/o Arvind. daughter
All R/o 1511, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
b. Shri Jagdish Pershad Saini, deceased, through L.Rs.
(substituted vide order dated 21.4.2010 of this
Hon'ble Court ) :
(A) Smt. Vinod Aunti. widow
(B) Shri Raju. son
Deceased, through LRs.
( substitution allowed on 19.8.2017) :
(a) Smt. Nirmal Saini. widow
(b) Amit Saini. son
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 3/73
4
(c) Komal Saini. daughter
R/o H.No.1515, Wazir Nagar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
(C) Shri Inder Singh @ Inderjeet,son deceased,
through L.Rs.
(substitution allowed vide order dated
5.5.2014) :
(i) Smt. Shashi Saini. widow
(ii) Megha. daughter
(iii) Sagar Saini. son.
All r/o H. No.1515, Wazir Nagar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
(D) Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Saini. son
Deceased, through LRs.
(substitution allowed on 19.8.2017) :
a. Shashi Saini. widow
b. Ritesh Saini. son
c. Dr. Vaishali Saini @ Rubby. daughter
R/o 1521, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
(E) Shri Deepak. son
Both r/o 1521, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
c. Shri Raj Kumar Saini. son of Chander Singh
Died on 21.10.2008, through LRs.
[substituted vide order dated 20.1.2011 of this
Hon'ble Court.] :
(a) Smt. Kailash. widow
(b) Shri Parveen. son
(c) Shri Pawan. son
All R/o 1521, Wazir Nagar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
(d) Poonam. daughter
Wife of Shri Sunil.
R/o R63, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 4/73
5
d. Shri Kartar Singh Saini son of Chander Singh, died on
30.11.2020 leaving behind the following as his only legal
heirs/representatives :
(i) Smt. Kiran Devi. widow
(ii) Soniya. daughter
(iii) Nitin. son
All residents of H. No.1521, Wazir Nagar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, Lodhi Road, South Delhi, New
Delhi 110003.
e. Smt. Anita Saini daughter of Chhajjo (daughter of
Chander Singh) since deceased, wife of Shri Yudhbir
Singh, Resident of E5, Sukhdev Vihar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
f. Shri Harish Kumar son of Smt. Chhajjo (D/o Chander
Singh) since deceased, resident of 3180, Kucha Tara
Chand, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, died on 14.11.2017.
(Substitution allowed vide order dated 1.2.2018) :
(a) Anita Saini. wife
(b) Neha Saini. daughter
(c) Sanaj Saini. Son.
g. Smt. Sunita daughter of Chhajjo (D/o Chander Singh)
since deceased, wife of Shri Jagdish, resident of 309,
Basai Darapur, New Delhi.
2. Shri Kishan Chand Saini (son) died on 4.3.2008 through
L.Rs.
( substitution allowed vide order dated 20.12.2014 ) :
(A) Smt. Santosh. widow
(B) Sh. Satish Kumar. son
(C) Mrs. Bala Devi. daughter
(D) Mrs. Saloni. daughter
(E) Mrs. Jyoti w/o Arvind. daughter
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 5/73
6
All R/o 1511, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New
Delhi.
3. Shri Jagdish Pershad Saini, deceased, through L.Rs.
(substituted vide order dated 21.4.2010 of this Hon'ble
Court ) :
(A) Smt. Vinod Aunti. widow
(B) Shri Raju. son
Deceased, through LRs. (substitution allowed on
19.8.2017) :
(a) Smt. Nirmal Saini. widow
(d) Amit Saini. son
(e) Komal Saini. daughter
R/o H.No.1515, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New
Delhi.
(C) Shri Inder Singh,son deceased, through
L.Rs. (substitution allowed vide order dated
5.5.2014 ):
(i) Smt. Shashi Saini. widow
(ii) Megha. daughter
(iii) Sagar Saini. son.
All r/o H. No.15151, Wazir Nagar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
(D) Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Saini. son
Deceased, through LRs. (substitution allowed vide order
dated 19.8.2017) :
(a) Shashi Saini. widow
(b) Ritesh Saini. son
(c) Dr. Vaishali Saini @ Rubby. daughter
R/o 1521, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
(d) Shri Deepak. son
Both r/o 1521, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
4. Shri Dal Singh son of Lakhmi Chand.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 6/73
7
R/o 3180, Kucha Tara Chand, Darya Ganj, New Delhi,
deceased through LRs.
(substitution allowed vide order dated 12.9.2003) :
(1) Smt. Maya Devi. widow
(2) Rajiv Saini. son
(3) Sandeep Saini (through LRs) son
(a) Ritu Saini (wife)
(b) Rajul Saini (son)
(c) Sukriti Saini (minor daughter)
All R/o B283, Ramprastha, Ghaziabad, UP.
(4) Harish Kumar. son
R/o 3180, Kucha Tara Chand, Darya Ganj, New Delhi,
died on 14.11.2017 leaving behind the following as his
legal Heirs.
(substitution allowed vide order dated 1.2.2018) :
(a) Anita Saini. wife
(b) Neha Saini. daughter
(c) Sanaj Saini. Son.
(5) Smt. Anita. daughter
Wife of Shri Yudhvir Singh
R/o B5, Sukhdev Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New
Delhi.
(6) Smt. Sunita daughter
Wife of Shri Jagdish,
R/o 389, Basai Darapur, New Delhi.
5. Shri Ram Sarup Saini son of Shri Bhola, deceased through
L.Rs.
( brought on record vide order dated 26.3.1982 in IA
No.3780/81) :
(a) Smt. Narayan wife of Shri Ram Sarup. (deleted)
(b) Shri Panna Lal son of Shri Ram Sarup, deceased,
through LRs.:
(i) Smt. Shakuntla Devi. widow (died issue less)
R/o 257, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 7/73
8
(c) Shri Dharu son of Shri Ram Sarup, deceased, through
(substitution allowed vide order dated 03.06.2005 )
:
(i) Shri Babu Lal son
R/o 257, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
(ii) Shri Rajiv Kumar @ Faqir Chand son
R/o 257, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
(iii) Smt. Krishna Devi D/o Shri Dharu.
R/o Naharpur, Delhi.
(iv) Smt. Roshni d/o Dharu.
R/o Village Badarpur, New Delhi.
(v) Smt. Jagwanti Devi d/o Dharu.
R/o Vill. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
(vi) Smt. Angoori Devi d/o Dharu.
R/o Vill. Thranth, Distt. Tehsil Mehrut, UP.
(d) Shri Vishnu son of Shri RamSarup, deceased through
LRs.
(substitution allowed on 19.8.2017) :
(a) Babu @ Trilok Chand. son
(b) Birahm Parkash. son
(c) Jai Parkash. son
(d) Mahinder Singh. son
(e) Papey. son
(f) Smt. Sarla Devi. daughter
(g) Smt. Santosh Devi. daughter
(h) Smt. Beena Devi. daughter
R/o 257, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
(e) Shri Bedi Ram son of Shri Ram Sarup.
R/o 257, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
(f) Smt. Mewa Devi d/o Shri Ram Sarup.
W/o Shri Mam Chand
R/o Bhagwan Nagar, Nr. Narela, Delhi.
(g) Smt. Misro Devi d/o Shri Ram Sarup (w/o Jagdish
Pershad)
R/o village Hiranki, Near Narela, Delhi.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 8/73
9
6. Shri Gurdial Singh son of Pt. Tansukh Ram.
R/o Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
[Died - exempted from impleadment of LRs of defendant
No.6 vide order dated 3.10.2019]. ..... DEFENDANTS
Date of institution : 14.08.1978
Date when file received : 06.02.2021
Date when order reserved : 21.01.2022/18.05.2022
Date of Judgment : 30.05.2022
JUDGMENT
1 The brief facts of the case as per plaintiff are that there was a person namely Pandit Lila Ram. Plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 are the sons of Sh. Lila Ram. Plaintiff no. 7 is the grandson of Sh. Lila Ram and plaintiff no. 8 is a firm.
2 As per the plaintiff, Sh. Lila Ram and defendant no. 1 i.e. Chander Singh, sometime in the year 1962/1963 agreed substantially to the following effect:
(a) Pandit Lila Ram or his nominee or nominees as party of one group and Sh. Chander Singh or his nominee or nominees as party of the other group would make diverse purchases of diverse lands in Delhi in their co owners.
(b) Funds required for such purchases would make available by Pt. Lila Ram and the same would carry interest at the rate of Rs.12/ percent per annum with yearly rests. Credit would be given by Pt. Lila Ram to Sh. Chander Singh for the amounts including interest which were then due to Sh. Chander Singh from Pt. Lila Ram.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 9/73 10
(c) The shares of the two groups in the land sopurchased would be as agreed upon from time to time at the time of purchases of such lands.
(d) Any investment made by a party in excess of the share of the investment required of him for his share or lands together with interest will be a first charge, burden and lien on the share of land of the other party.
(e) At the time of the final accounting and partition of the lands between Pt. Lila Ram and his associates on one side and Sh. Chander Singh and his associates on the other side, if any amount was found payable by Sh. Chander Singh, he was to be given an option either to pay the money due with interest personally by sale of his share of lands or to surrender his share of lands to Pt. Lila Ram as if the same was held by him as benami to Pt. Lila Ram.
(f) Till the final accounting was done and the amount due was paid by Sh. Chander Singh, the entire share of the lands so purchased in the name of Sh. Chander Singh and his as ciates were to be treated as lands of Pt. Lila Ram held benami in the names of Sh. Chander Singh and his associates.
(g) Pt. Lila Ram was to be personally responsible for the commitments made in his name and in name of his nominees. Similarly, Sh. Chander Singh was to be personally responsible for the commitments made in his name and in the name of his nominees.
3 Pursuant to the said agreement, Pandit Lila Ram and Chander Singh purchased various lands in Delhi. The description of the said lands and the land deals are mentioned hereinafter as following: (I) Land measuring 59 bighas and 5 biswas in village Tughlaqabad, Delhi State and bearing Khasra nos. 2121/700 (1 bigha and 11 biswas), CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 10/73 11 2636/1776 (16), 2918/2147/(33), 3056/2006 (01), 2683/1963 (017), 2458/1767/2 (55), 2455/1764 (11), 2454/1764 (312), 2453/1764 (41), 2457/1763 (015), 2524/1661 (119), 2526/1661 (06), 2528/1661(918), 1772/1647 (14), 1652(23), 2464/1637 min. (413), 2465/1637 (99), 2468/1637 (129).
Total 59 bighas and 5 bighas was purchased from Sh. Din Dyal, vide sale deed dated 10.10. registered as no. 7476 in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 527, on pages 120125 on 15.11.1962 in the office of Sub Registrar, New Delhi, in the names of Sh. Dal Singh defendant no. 4 (10/16 share) and Sh. Ram Sarup, defendant no. 5 (6/16 share).
In this transaction Sh. Dal Singh, defendant no. 4 was the benami of Sh. Chander Singh, (defendant no. 1) to the extent of 8/16 share and benami of Pt. Lila Ram to the extent of 2/16 share. Sh. Ram Sarup, defendant no. 5 was benami of Pt. Lila Ram fr 6/16 share).
On 31.07.1964 the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram including sale price paid, other charges and expenses incurred, interest due LESS compensation received, was determined to be Rs.20,127.71/. Half of this amount i.e. Rs.10,063/85/, was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
(II) Land measuring 313 in village Tughlaqabad, bearing khasra no. 644 (11), and 405 (212) was purchased from Sh. Bishan Singh vide sale deed dated 10.04.63 registered as No. 2823 in Addl. Book no. 1, Volume no. 964 on pages 88 to 92 on 17.04.63 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi, in the names of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share) and Sh. Kishan Chand, defendant no. 2 (1/2 share).
On this transaction Sh. Kishan Chand, defendant no. 2 was the benami of Sh. Chander Singh, defendant no. 1.
On 31.07.1964 the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram including sale price paid, other charges and expenses incurred and interest due was determined to be Rs.5,054/65/. Half share of this amount is Rs.2,527/28/ CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 11/73 12 was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
(III) Land measuring 30 bighas and 1 biswa in village Tughlaqabad, Delhi State, being khasra no. 426 min, (115), 424 (45), 425 min. (4.0), 427 (2
11), 428 (49), 429 (43), 430 (612), 436 (019) and 426 min. (17)Total 30 bighas 1 biswa, was purchased from Puran Singh vide sale deed dated 14.05.1963 registered as No. 3767 in Addl. Book no. 1, Vol. No. 981 on pages 133 to 137 on 28.05.1963 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi in the names of Sh. Gurdial Singh, defendant no. 5, (10/16 share) and Sh. Chander Singh, defendant no. 1 (6/16 share). Sh. Gurdial Singh was benami of Pt. Lila Ram to the extent of 8/16 share.
Land measuring 18 bighas 16 biswas in village Tughlaqabad, bearing Khasra no. 438 was purchased from Sh. Puran Singh vide sale deed dated 14.05.1963 registered as no. 3768 in addl. Book no. 1, vol. no. 981 on pages 138 to 142 on 28.05.1963 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi in the names of Sh. Gurdial Singh (10/16 share) and Sh. Chander Singh (6/16 share).
Sh. Gurdial Singh was benami of Pt. Lila Ram to the extent of 8/16 share.
On 31.07.1964 the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram including sale price paid, other charges and expenses incurred and interest due on the above two purchases, LESS, income received from the land was determined to be Rs.66,610.50/ (6/16th share) of this amount i.e. Rs.24,978.94/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
(IV) Land measuring 35 bighas and 18 biswas in village Tughlaqabad, bearing Khasra No. 612 (410), 613 min , (208), 2026/621 (312), 2027/621 (19), 347 min. (58), 2609/718 (24), 428 (63), 436 min. (04), 450 (38), 451 (310) and 433 (32) total 35 bighas and 18 biswas, was purchased from Sh. Kishan Singh vide sale deed dated 31.07.1963, registered as no. 5363 in Addl. Book no. 1, Vol No. 1011 on pages 191 to 195 on 08.08.1963 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi, in the names of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share), Sh. Chander CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 12/73 13 Singh (1/2 share).
Out of this land, Khasra no. 612 (410), 613 min. (28), 2026/621 (312), 2027/621 (19), 347 min. (58), 2609/718 (24)total 19 bighas and 11 biswas were acquired by the government and the compensation amounts of Rs.13,233.25/ Rs.7,459.70/ have been accounted for in the account of land purchased from Sh. Arjun Singh as mentioned hereinafter. Land measuring 28 bighas and 11 biswas in village Tughlaqabad bearing khasra no. 417 (08), 418 (019), 419 (019), 439 (37), 444 min. (117), 452 (118), 625 min (5112), 629 (2
8), 631 (215), 633 (311), 634 (21) and 717 min (27) total 28 bighas and 11 biswas were purchased from Arjun Singh vide sale deed dated 20.07.1963, registered as no. 5182, in Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 108 on pages 141 to 154 on 27.07.1963 in the office of SubRegistrar, New Delhi in the name of Pt. Lila Ram.
Half of the land was purchased for Sh. Chander Singh. Out of the land mentioned in para 7 (c) above, land being Khasra No. 625 min. (512), 629 (28), 631 (215), 633 (311), 634 (210), 717 min. (27) was acquired by govt. Compensation amount of Rs.24,012/ is accounted for as hereinafter mentioned.
On 31.07.1964 the total investment made by Pt. Lila Ram for price paid and for charges and expenses incurred and interest due was determined as Rs.36,066/. For this land mentioned in para 7 (c) above.
Compensation amount of Rs.24,012/ was received for acquisition of land mentioned in para 7 (d) above. Compensation of Rs.1,449/ was received in respect of the land acquired as mentioned in para 5(c) above. Compensation amount of Rs.18,233.25/ and Rs.7,459.70/ were also received in respect of the land mentioned in para 7 (b) above.
On 31.07.1964 the net investment made by Pt. Lila Ram for price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due less compensation received and interest due thereon in respect of lands purchased from Sh. Kishan Singh and Sh. Arjun Singh and also after deducting compensation received in respect of land purchased from Sh. Bishan Singh was determined to be Rs.27,535.90/ as under:
(i) Total Cost including interest in respect of land purchased from CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 13/73 14 Sh. Kishan Singh mentioned in para 7(a) above Rs.44,811.90.
(ii) Total cost including Interest in respect of land purchased from Sh. Arjun Singh, mentioned in Para 7(c) above Rs. 36,066/ Rs.80,877.90/ LESS: For compensation received as Mentioned in para 7 (f) above Rs.24,012/ plus Rs.1,449/ Plus Rs.18,233.25/ plus Rs.7,459.70. = Rs.51,153.95/ Interest Rs.2,188.05/ = Rs.53,342.00/ Net Balance Rs.27,535.90/ Half of this amount, i.e. 13,767.95/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
(V) Land measuring 4 bighas and 7 biswas in village Tughlaqabad and bearing khasra number 457 was purchased from Sh. Gian Chand vide sale deed dated 31.07.1963 registered as no. 5354, in book no. I, vol. no. 547 on pages 268 to 271 on 09.08.1963 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi in the names of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share) and Sh. Chander Singh (1/2 share).
On 31.07.1964 the entire investment of Pt. Lila Ram including price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due was determined to Rs.4,428.42/. Half of this amount, i.e. Rs.2,214.21/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
(VI) Land measuring 29 bighas and 14 biswas in village Tughlaqabad bearing khasra no. 102(413), 103 (13), 104 (11), 107 (13), 109 (212), 106 (0
13) and 2841/121 (189) - total 29 bighas and 14 biswas was purchased from Sh. Radha Kishan vide sale dated 02.06.1964, registered as no. 3929 in book no. I, Vol. No. 572, on pages 245 to 253 on 19.08.1964 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi, in the name of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share) and Sh. Chander CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 14/73 15 Singh (1/2 share).
On 31.07.1964 the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram including sale price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due was determined at Rs.32,722.36/. Half of this amount, i.e. Rs.16,361.18/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram (VII) Land measuring 43 bighas and 17 biswas in village Ladha Sarai, Delhi State and bearing khasra no. 504/23 (26), 506/23 (17), 507/26/2 (14), 509/26 (02), 446/44 (12), 448/44 (07), 610/45 (012), 27 (218), 444/46 (112), 40 (26), 43 (12), 42 (015), 41 (29), 496/362/49 (111), 30 (18), 31 (110), 51 (27), 52 (21), 54 (36), 29 (20), 498/50 (03), 39 (417), 34 (116), 500/363/49 (07), 32 (13), 35 (210) and 502/361/49 (06) total 43 bighas and 17 biswas was purchased from Sh. Om Prakash vide sale deed dated 29.11.1962 registered as no. 8522, book no. 1, vol. no. 530 on pages 127 to 137 on 17.01.1963 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Jagdish Pershad, defendant no. 3 (1/2 share) and M/s Kotla Private Ltd., plaintiff no. 8 (1/2 share).
Sh. Jagdish Pershad was benami of Sh. Chander Singh and M/s Kotla Private Ltd., was nominee of Pt. Lila Ram.
On 31.07.1964 the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram, including sale price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due was determined at Rs.35,488/. Alf of this amount i.e. Rs.17,744/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
The share of Pt. Lila Ram in the name of M/s Kotla Private Ltd. was sold out and the share of Sh. Chander Singh in the name of Sh. Jagdish Pershad stands acquired almost in full and the compensation amount payable in respect thereof is in dispute as the plaintiff no. 1 to 6 as heirs of Pt. Lila Ram, are claiming title to the same as the land in question is to be considered benami of Pt. Lila Ram so long as Sh. Chander Singh does not pay for its as stated above.
(VIII) Land measuring 46 bighas 19 biswas in village Luddha Sarai and bearing khasra no. 436/199 (013), 438/199 (05), 225 (65), 227 (67), 480/223 min (122), 200 min. (010), 202 (516) and 201 (153) total 46 bighas and 19 CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 15/73 16 biswas was purchased from Sh. Om Prakash vide sale deed dated 13.12.1962 registered on no. 8823 in Book No. 1, Vol. no. 530, on pages 298307 on 15.01.1963 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi in the name of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share) and Sh. Kishan Chand, defendant no. 2 (1/2 share).
Sh. Kishan Chand, defendant no. 2 was benami of Sh. Chander Singh.
On 31.07.1964 the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram including sale price paid, charges and expensed incurred and interest due, was determined to be Rs.38,359. Half of this amount i.e. Rs.19,179.50/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
Pt. Lila Ram sold out his half share. The entire Land expect Khasra no. 480/223 min. (120) was acquired by the govt. The compensation amount payable in respect thereof is in disputed as the plaintiff, as heirs of Pt. Lila Ram, are claiming the title of the same as the land in question is to be considered benami of Pt. Lila Ram so long as Sh. Chander Singh does no pay for it as stated above.
(IX) Land measuring 19 bighas and 10 biswas in village Ladha Sarai, bearing Khasra no. 322 min (514), 348 min. (015), 349 (217), 56 (016), 76 (1
19), 77 min. (22), 78 (115), 79 (28), 80 (010) and 81 min. (014) total 19 bighas and 10 biswas dated 23.02.1963 registered as no. 1453 in book no. 1, Vol. no. 539, on pages 177 to 185 on dated 05.06.1963 in the office of Sub Registrar, New Delhi, in the name of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share) and Sh. Jagdish Pershad (1/2 share).
Sh. Jagdish Pershad was benami of Sh. Chander Singh. On 31.07.1964 the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram for price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due, LESS, income received from the land as determined as Rs.15,524/. Half of the amount i.e. Rs.7,762/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
Pt. Lila Ram sold out half share of Khasra no. 56, 76, 77 min., 78, 79, 80 and 81 min. The whole of the land was acquired by govt. and compensation amount payable in respect thereof is in dispute as the plaintiff no. 1 CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 16/73 17 to 6 as heirs of Pt. Lila Ram, are claiming title to the same, as the land in question is to be considered benami of Pt. Lila Ram so long as Sh. Chander Singh does not pay for it as stated above.
(X) Land measuring 25 bighas and 9 biswas in village Ladhha Sarai, bearing khasra no. 91 min. (416), 92 (718), 94 min. (08), 95 min. (113), 96 (3
2), 99 (111), 100 (07), 101 (015), 102 (117), 103 min. (015), 104 min. (015), 123 (01), 407/159 (02), 409/159 (07), 410/159 (08), 411/159 (08) and 412/159 (06) Total 25 bighas and 9 biswas, was purchased from Sh. Megh Raj vide sale deed dated 04.06.1963, registered as No. 4111, in Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 988 on pages 165 to 170 on 10.06.1963, in the office of the SubRegistrar, New Delhi, in the names of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share) and Sh. Ved Prakash, plaintiff no. 7 (1/4 share) and Sh. Chander Singh (1/4 share).
Sh. Ved Parkash, plaintiff no. 7 was benami of Pt. Lila Ram. On 31.07.1964, the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram, including sale price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due, LESS, income received was determined as Rs.42,848/.
Onefourth share i.e. Rs.10,712/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
Pt. Lila Ram sold out his ¾ share, including that of Sh. Ved Prakash, plaintiff no. 7, and the whole of the land has been acquired by the Govt. The compensation amount payable in respect thereof is in dispute, as the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6, as heirs of Pt. Lila Ram, are claiming title to the same, as the land in question is to be considered benami of Pt. Lila Ram so long as Sh. Chander Singh does not pay for it as stated above.
(XI) Land measuring 47 bighas and 9 biswas of village Laddha Sarai, bearing khasra no. 128 (015), 113(117), 114 (210), 365/117 (07), 364/117 min. (10), 115 (13), 116 (13), 129 min. (69), 130 (11), 131 (116), 127 (08), 107 (6
12), 105 (16), 106 (211), 111 (311), 118 (12), 119 (11), 120 (33), 123 min. (2
17), 132 (113), 135 (011), 126 (09), 112 (010), 108 (13), 110 (110), 121 (0
17) and 124 (04)total 47 bighas and 9 biswas was purchased from Sh. Ram Lal CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 17/73 18 vide sale deed dated 08.07.1963, registered as no. 4829 in Book No. 1 vol. no. 547 on pages 67 to 72 on 02.08.1963 in the office of Sub Registrar, New Delhi, in the names of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share), Sh. Ved Parkash (1/4 share) and Sh. Kishan Chand (1/4 share).
Sh. Ved Prakash, plaintiff no. 7 was benami of Pt. Lila Ram and Sh. Kishan Chand, defendant no. 2, was the benami of Sh. Chander Singh, defendant no. 1.
On 31.07.1964 the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram, including sale price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due, LESS income received from the land was determined as Rs.93,996.96/. Onefourth of the amount i.e. Rs.23,499.24/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
Pt. Lila Ram sold his 3/4 share, including that of Sh. Ved Parkash. The land has been acquired by the Government and the compensation amount payable in respect thereof is in dispute as the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6, as heirs of Pt. Lila Ram, are claiming title to the same, as the land in question is to be considered benami of Pt. Lila Ram so long as Sh. Chander Singh does not pay for it as stated above.
(XII) Land measuring 12 bighas and 9 biswas in village Tigri, Delhi State, bearing khasra no. 16 min (112), 19/1 (16), 42 (42), 43 (416) and 44 min (013) total 12 bighas and 9 biswas was purchased from Smt. Rukmani Devi vide sale deed registered as no. 2822 in book no. 1 Vol. no. 964 on pages 8487, on 17.04.1968 in the office of the Sub Registrar New Delhi in the name of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share) and Sh. Kishan Chand (1/2 share). Sh. Kishan Chand was benami of Sh. Chander Singh.
Land measuring 12 bighas 6 biswas in village Tigri bearing Khasra no. 13/1 (308), 13/2 (18), 14/2 (112), 15/A (214) and 16 min (34) total 12 bighas and 6 biswas was purchased from Smt. Sundari Devi vide sale deed dated 10.04.1963 registered as no. 2821 in Addl. Book No. 1 Vol No. 964 on pages 78 to 82 on 17.04.1963 in the office of Sub Registrar New Delhi, in the CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 18/73 19 name of Pt. Lila Ram (1/2 share) and Sh. Kishan Chand (1/2 share). Sh. Kishan Chand was benami of Sh. Chander Singh.
Whole of the land mentioned in sub para (a)(i) and (a (ii) above were acquired by the govt. Compensation of 12 bighas and 6 biswas of land mentioned in (a)(ii) and 2 bighas and 18 biswas out of land mentioned in para (a)
(i) above was received by Pt. Lila Ram on 31.07.1964. The entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram for sale price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due LESS, compensation received was determined to be Rs.9,993.87/. Half of this amount i.e. Rs.4,996.93/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram. Regarding compensation for the rest of the land mentioned in sub para
(a)(i) above, the same is in dispute as the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6, as heirs of Pt. Lila Ram are claiming title to the same, as the land in question is to be considered Benami of Pt. Lila Ram, so long as Sh. Chander Singh does not pay for it as stated above.
(XIII) Land measuring 42 bighas and 3 biswas in village Satbari Delhi State, bearing khasra no. 941 (416), 942/1 (38), 942/2 (18), 943/2 (28), 943/1 (28), 944 (46), 945 (412), 946 (116), 948 (11), 949 (418), 950 (44), 951 (4
16) and 952 min (112) total 42 bighas and 3 biswas was purchased from Sh. Tirath Singh vide sale deed registered as No. 6593 in book no. 1 vol. no. 552 on pages 5 to 11 on 26963 in the office the Sub Registrar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Dharam Singh, plaintiff no. 4 (1/2 share), Sh. Jagdev Singh (1/4 share) and Sh. Chander Singh (1/4 share).
Sh. Dharam Singh was benami of Pt. Lila Ram. On 31.07.1964, the entire investment including price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due was determined as 19,209.23/. ¼ share of the same i.e. Rs.4,802.31/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
In respect of the aforesaid land a suit for specific performance was filed on the basis of an alleged agreement of sale with Sh. Tirath Ram. The said suit was dismissed and an appeal is pending in the High Court of Delhi.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 19/73 20 (XIV) Land measuring 41 bighas and 15 biswas in village Chhatarpur, Delhi State, bearing khasra numbers 1419 min. (44), 1420 (31), 1421 (110), 1432 (510), 1433 (48), 1477 Min. (214), 1480 (416), 1481 (416), 1435 Min. (0
16), 1484 (416), 1485 (416) and 1324/1 min. (08_, total 41 Bighas and 15 biswas was purchased from Sh. Uttam Singh, vide sale deed dated 22.07.1963, registered as no. 6583, in book no. 1, Vol. No. 850, on paged 352 to 357 on 27.09.1963 in the office of the SubRegistrar, New Delhi in the name of Pt. Lila Ra, (½ share) and Sh. Chander Singh (½ share).
On 31.07.1964 the entire investment made by Pt. Lila Ram for price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due, was determined at Rs.42,120/.
Half of this amount i.e. Rs.21,060/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
Subsequently on account of a dispute with M/s DLF regarding this land, there was a settlement with the said company and the said company paid sum of Rs.13,000/ and Rs.40,000/ on account of the value of the land to Pt. Lila Ra, out of this, a credit of Rs.6,500/ and Rs.20,000/ was given to Sh. Chander Singh on 25.06.1965 and 19.10.1965 respectively.
(XV) Land measuring 44 bighas and 9 biswas in village Chhatarpur, bearing khasra numbers 1507 min (28), 1473 (28), 1538 (416), 1469 (416), 1470 (416), 1467 (416), 1468 (416), 1457 (416), 1515 min (216), 166 (216), 1474 min (20), 1527/1(20) and 165 (15) Total 44 bighas and 9 biswas, was purchased from Sh. Dalbir Singh, vide sale deed, registered as no. 5756, in Book no. 1 vol. no. 551, on pages 16 to 18 on 24.08.1963 in the office of sub registrar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Chander Singh.
Sh. Chander Singh was benami of Pt. Lila Ram to the extent of ½ share.
On 31.07.1964, the entire investment of Pt. Lila Ram including price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest due was determined as Rs.42,600.42/. Half share of CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 20/73 21 this amount i.e. Rs.21,300.21/ was payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram.
4 A suit for specific performance was filed by one Sh. Chandi Ram against Sh. Chander Singh in respect of the whole of the above mentioned land (XV) on the basis of the alleged prior agreement of sale with him by Sh. Dalbir Singh. That suit was decreed. Sh. Chander Singh filed an appeal. He made a compromise therein. As a result, therefore, he has received some money from Sh. Chandi Ram ostensibly secretly has agreed to part with some land. The plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 as heirs of Pt. Lila Ram, are entitled to rendition of accounts from Sh. Chander Singh and to receive the amount due as well as their share of the land still available.
5 On 31.07.1974, a total sum of Rs.2,00,969.61/ was found payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram and a sum of Rs.1,02,974.38/ was found payable to Sh. Chander Singh as his credit. As a result thereof, a net some of Rs.97,995.23/ was found payable by Sh. Chander Singh to Pt. Lila Ram on that date.
6 Subsequent to 31.07.1964 up to 31.12.1967, Sh. Chander Singh received various payments from Pt. Lila Ram and paid various amount in cash or in hand. Various amounts CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 21/73 22 on account of interest also became due. A credit of Rs.6,500/ on 25.08.1966 and another of Rs.20,000/ on 19.10.1965 were also allowed to Sh. Chander Singh on account of the money received from M/s DLF as mentioned above. As a result of the entire amount, a sum of Rs.1,07.245.68/ remained due to Pt. Lila Ram from Sh. Chander Singh on 31.12.1967.
7 Since 31.12.1967, Sh. Chander Singh, defendant no. 1, has not paid any amount. A sum of Rs.1,07,245.68/ as principal, and Rs.2,50,491.32/ as interest @ agreed rate of Rs.12% per annum with early rests total Rs.3,57,737/ are due from Sh. Chander Singh to plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 as the legal heirs of late Pt. Lila Ram on the date of the suit.
8 The plaintiffs 1 to 6 asked the defendant Sh. Chander Singh to settle the accounts and to pay the amount so found due either personally and or sale of his share in the available lands or to surrender the same in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 6 as the beneficial owner thereof, but he has not heeded to the request.
9 In the prayer plaintiff has sought as following:
(a) If the defendant no. 1 pays the amount of Rs.3,57,737/ or such amount as may be found due on settlement of accounts in respect of the investment made by Pt. Lila Ram on account of CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 22/73 23 price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest occurred in respect of the lands purchased, personally and/or by sale of his share of lands, then a partition be effected of the lands available and the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 be given exclusive possession of their share of the land.
OR
(b) If defendant no. 1 does not opt to pay the amount as stated above, then a declaration be given to that all the lands mentioned in foregoing paras, including the shares of the defendants no. 1 to 4 are owned by them beneficially and that the defendants no. 1 to 4 are their benami to the extent of the shares standing in their names and that the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 are also entitled to receive all compensation money payable in respect of all these lands as owners thereof to the exclusion of these defendants.
OR
(c) The plaintiffs 1 to 6 be declared to be entitled to recover the sum of rs.3,57,737/ from the share of lands of the defendant no. 1 to 4 including compensation payable in respect thereof before partition is effected.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS 10 In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 i.e. Chander Singh, it is stated that this court has no jurisdiction since the land is acquired by the government and only LAC Court could determine the right of party to get compensation. The suit is hit by the doctrine of resjudicata. The suit is time barred as the last transaction is mentioned as in December, 1966 and the suit has been filed in CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 23/73 24 1978. There is no liability of the defendant to render any account. The suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as one widow of Sh. Ranjit (predeceased son of Lila Ram) was not made party. Nobody was benamidar of anybody else. Defendants no. 5 is real nephew of Lila Ram and defendant no. 6 is the close associate of Late Sh. Lila Ram. Both these defendants are in collusion with plaintiffs. The suit is barred u/o.2 rule 2 CPC and by the doctrine of estoppel. The suit is also not maintainable in view of Sec.281A (1) (c) of Income Tax Act as these transactions are not shown in tax returns.
On merits, it was denied that there was any agreement between Sh. Pandit Lila Ram and Chander Singh as mentioned in clause A to G to abovesaid paragraph 2. The defendant has been time to time purchasing lands and there was no question of Pt. Lila Ram having any interest in the said land. Rest of the contents of Plaint were denied. It is further affirmed that defendant had purchased the land on its own.
11 In the written statements filed on behalf of defendants no. 2 and 3, it is stated that only LAC court has jurisdiction to try the present matter. The rest of the stand taken is similar as that of defendant no.1.
12 In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 4 (Dal Singh), the stand taken is similar to that CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 24/73 25 of defendant no.1.
13 In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 5 Sh. Ram Swroop, he admitted that he was benami of Pt. Lila Ram.
In reply to prayer clause, it is stated that no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff against the answering defendant so the answering defendant has no objection if the suit is being decreed in favour of plaintiff.
14 In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 6 Sh. Gurdayal Singh, he admitted that he was benami of Pt. Lila Ram.
In reply to prayer clause, it is stated that no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff against the answering defendant so the answering defendant has no objection if the suit is being decreed in favour of plaintiff.
REPLICATION 15 In the replication plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of his case and denied those of written statements of defendants.
Some concise information: Description of parties as per plaint: Plaintiffs 1 to 6 are sons of Late Pandit Lila Ram CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 25/73 26 Plaintiff no. 7 Ved Prakash is the son of plaintiff no.2 and alleged nominee/benami of Pandit Lila Ram. Plaintiff no. 8 is Company, of plaintiffs and alleged nominees/benami of Pandit Lila Ram.
Defendant no. 1 Chander Singh.
Defendant no.2 Kishan Chand son of Chander Singh Defendant no. 3 Jagdish Prasad son of Chander Singh Defendant no. 4 Dal Singh son in law of Chander Singh (defendants no. 2 to 4) are the alleged benami of Chander Singh Dal Singh also alleged benami of Pandit Lila Ram in Ex.PW1/1 as per plaint.
Defendant no. 5 Ram Saroop alleged nominee/benami of Pandit Lila Ram Defendant no. 6 Gurdial Singh alleged nominee/benami of Pandit Lila Ram The sale deeds are at Serial no. 1 to 7 relates to Village Tughlakabad. (2) Sale deeds 8 to 13 relate to Village Ladha Sarai, (3) Sale Deeds 14 and 15 relates to Village Tigri, (4) Sale Deed 16 relates to Village Satbari, (5) Sale Deeds 17 and 18 relate to Village Chhatarpur.
16 From the pleadings of the parties and material on record, following issues were framed on 09.04.1980: 1 Is the suit within time?
2 Is the suit bad for multifariousness?
3 Is the suit resjudicata in respect of some items claimed therein?
4 Is the suit barred by Order 2 rule 2 CPC?
5 Is the suit not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction?
6 is the suit as constituted maintainable?
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 26/73 27 One additional issue was framed on 18.08.1982 which is as follows: 1 What is the effect of the provisions contained in Sec.281A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the maintainability of this suit and has the plaintiff complied with its requirement?
On 25.09.2004 following additional issues were also framed: 1 Whether Pandit Lila Ram and Chander Singh agreed for purchasing the suit land as per terms mentioned in paras 2(a) to 2(g) of the plaint? OPP.
2 Whether pursuant to the terms mentioned in para Nos.2(a) to 2(g) of the plaint, Pt. Lila Ram and Chander Singh purchased the land mentioned in paras no. 4 to 18 of the plaint benami in the names mentioned therein. If so, what effect?
3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of rendition of accounts, recovery and partition of land as alleged? OPP.
4 Whether Chander Singh defendant no. 1 failed to make the payment of his share as per aforesaid terms and if so, to what effect? OPP.
5 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration declaring the plaintiffs as owners of suit land? OPP.
6 Whether any part of the suit land has already been acquired by the Govt. and if so, what land and to what effect? OPP.
7 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation in respect of entire acquired land forming part of suit land? OPP.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 27/73 28 8 Relief.
17 To prove its case plaintiffs examined following 7 witnesses: PW 1 Sh. Anand Kumar relied on following documents: Srl. Description of document Exhibits No. No.
1. Original sale deed - document No.7476 dated 10.10.1962. in Ex. PW 1/1 Urdu, along with translation in English. (P.1)
2. Certified copy of receipt issued by Sh. Deen Dayal on Ex.
15.09.1962, in Urdue, along with translation in English. PW 1/2
3. Original Passbook of Ram Swarup s/o Bhola Ram Ex.PW 1/3 3A Photo copy of Bahi with English translation. Mark A
4. Certified Copies of statement of Sh. Bhagwan Sahai, Sh. Kailash Ex.PW Kumar, Leeladhar sharma, Mahavir Singh, Madan Lal Mittal, 1/4(colly.) Rajender Kumar, Vijender s/o Chandgi,Brahm Prakash, L.R. Vyas,P.R.Monga, Kailash Kumar and ....
5. Original sale deed dated 10.04.1963 executed by Sh. Bishan Ex.PW2/1 Singh in favour of Pt. Lila Ram and Sh. Kishan Chand, document No. 2823 .
6. Original receipt dated 27.03.1963, executed by Sh. Bishan Singh Ex.PW 1/6 in favour of Pt. Lila Ram along with its English translation
7. Original sale deed dated 14.5.1963, document No.3767, Ex.PW 1/7 executed by Sh. Puran Singh in favour of Sh. Gurdial Singh and (P2) Chander Singh.
8. Original agreement to sell dated 27.3.1963 executed by Sh.Puran Ex.PW1/8 Singh in Urdu alongwith its English translation
9. Original receipt issued by Sh. Puran Singh dated 15.4.1963 in Ex.PW 1/9 Urdu alongwith its English translation
10. Original sale deed dated 14.5.196 document No.3768 executed Ex.PW 1/10 by Sh. Puran Singh in favour of Sh. Gurdial Singh and chander Singh
11. Original Sanad issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation Ex.PW 1/12 in the name of Sh. Puran Singh dated 7.11.1962 CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 28/73 29
12. The original agreement to sell dated 27.3.1963 executed by Sh. Ex.PW 1/13 Kishan Singh in favour of Pt. Lila Ram, in Urdu along with English translation.
13. The original receipt issued by Sh. Kishan Singh dated 27.7.1963, Ex.PW 1/14 in Urdu along with English translation.
14. The original Sanad issued by Govt . of India, Ministry of Ex.PW 1/15 Rehabilitation in favour of Sh.Kishan singh dated 8.7.1963
15. The original sale deed dated 31.7.1963,document No.5363 Ex.PW 1/16 executed by Sh. Kishan Singh in favour of Pt. Lila Ram & Ors. 16 Original Agreement to Sell dated 7.3.1963 and Original receipt of Ex.Pw.1/17 even date executed by Sallu after excepting Rs.3901/ by Pt. Lila Ex.P.1/18 Ram and further original receipt for Rs.1550/ dated 25.3.63 as Ex.PW.1/19 well as original receipt dated 17.7.1963 for Rs.2749/ along with and English translation. Ex.PW.1/20
17. Original Sanad dated 08.07.1963 in favour of Shri Arjun Singh. Ex.PW 1/21 18 Original sale deed dated 20.7.1963, document No.5182, Ex.PW 1/22 executed by Sh. Arjun singh Ex.PW.2/4 19 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 31.7.1963, document Ex.PW 1/23 No.5354 in Urdu along with English translation. Ex.PW.2/5 20 Original sale deed dated 02.06.1964 document No.3929 Ex.PW 1/24 executed by Radha Kishan, in Urdu with English translation. Ex.PW.2/7 (P5) 21 Original agreement dated 22.04.1964 and the English translation Ex.PW 1/25 already on record as Mark G 22 Original sale deed dated 29.11.1962, document No.8522 Ex.PW 1/26 executed by Om Parkash, in Urdu along with English translation. Ex.PW.2/8 (P6) 23 Photocopy of Bahi in Mundi. Mark H 24 Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 13.12.1962 document No.8823 Ex.PW 1/27 executed by Shri Om Parkash in Urdu along with English PW.2/9 translation.
25 Photo copy of Bahi in Mundi. Mark PW.1/28 26 Original sale deed dated 23.2.1963, document No.1435 along Ex.PW 1/28 with English translation executed by Durga Devi. Ex.PW.2/10 P7 27 Original Receipt of Rs. 4500/ dated 15.2.1963, in Urdu along Ex. PW 1/29 with English translation (colly.) 28 Certified copy of Sanad dated 15.2.1963 along with type copy of Ex. PW 1/30 the allotment letter dated 25.2.1963 and PW1/31 29 Original agreement dated 27.5.1963 along with English Ex.PW 1/32 translation. Ex.PW.1/32A CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 29/73 30
30. Original Sanad dated 23.7.1962 issued by the Govt. of India . Ex.PW 1/33 31 Original sale deed dated 4.6.1963, already Exhibited. Document Ex.PW.2/11 No.4111 executed by Megh Raj, in Urdu alongwith English (P8) translation.
32 Photo copy of Bahi in Mundi. Mark K
33 Original sale deed dated 08.07.1963 Document No.8823 in Urdu Ex.PW.1/35
along with English translation. P.9
Ex.PW.2/6
34 Original sanad dated 30.9.1964 in favour of Ram Lal. Ex.PW.1/36
Ex.PW.1/37
35. Photo copy of English translation of Bahi. Mark L
36. Original agreement dated 01.04.1963, receipt of the sale Ex.PW 1/38 executed by Smt. Rukmani Devi and the original receipt of part and Ex.PW payment dated 08.04.1963 of Rs. 11,000/ 1/40 36A Sale deed document No.2822 dated17.4.1963. PW.2/3
37. Original agreement dated 1.4.1963 and original receipt of part Ex.PW.1/38 payment dated 08.04.1963 in Urdu. Ex.PW.1/40 respectively.
38. English translation of above two documents. MarkK2 Mark K3
39. Original Sale Deed dated 10.04.1963, document No.2821, PW.1/44 executed by Smt. Sundari Devi (also Ex.P10 during.) Document Ex.PW.2/2 No.1435 P10
40. Original Sanad dated 9.6.1996. Ex.PW 1/45
41. Original sale deed document No.4111 dated10.6.1963 already Ex.PW.1/47 Ex. PW.2/12 K (P11)
42. Certified copy of sale deed - document No. 6583 executed by Ex.PW.2/13 Uttam Singh dated 22.7.1963 alongwith English translation. Ex.PW.1/48
43. Original agreement dated 8.7.1963. Ex.PW 1/49 Original Receipt dated 12.7.1963 To 1/9/63 and15/9/63. Ex.PW.1/52
44. English translation of above documents. K4 to K7
45. Photo copy of Bahi of Pt. Leela Ram regarding above transaction Mark O colly.
along with English translation of the relevant entries..
46. Sale deed dated 24.8.963, document No.5756, executed by Ex.PW 1/53 Dalbir Singh and English translation. PW.1/53A
47. Photo copy of Bahi with English translation. Mark P colly.
48. Photocopy of the Bahi of pt. Leela Ram regarding above Mark O colly.
transaction along with English translation of the relevant entries CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 30/73 31
49. Sale deed dated 24.08.1963 executed by Sh. Dalbir Singh and Ex.PW 1/53 translation of the same document and Ex.PW 1/53A
50. Photocopies of the entries in the Bahi maintained by Pandit Mark P colly.
Leela Ram along with its English transaction
51. Statement of Account of Chander Singh in the Books of Pandit Ex. PW 1/54 Leela Ram
52. Letter dated 13.10.1969 which is certified copy of he letter dt. Ex.PW 1/55 13.10.1969 issued by D. Subramanian, CIT (Central), New Delhi
53. Certified copy of the Settlement petition filed by Pandit Leela Ex.PW 1/56 Ram with Income Tax officer along with its annexures
54. Certified copy of Letter dated 29.10.1968 issued by L.R.Vyas, Ex.PW 1/57 Income Tax Officer
55. Certified copy of summons issued by Income Tax officer to Pandit Ex.PW 1/58 Leela Ram dated 23.09.1968
56. Certified copy of letter dated 24.09.1968 issued by Sh. L. R. Ex.PW 1/59 Vyas, ITO of Pandit Leela Ram
57. Certified copy of letter dated 21/22.08.1968 issued by L.R. Vyas, Ex.PW 1/60 ITO
58. Original letter dated 29.11.1968 received from L.R.Vyas, ITO by Ex.PW 1/62 Pandit Leela Ram
59. Original letter dated 20/21.08.1968 received from L.R.Vyas, ITO Ex.PW 1/63 by Pandit Leela Ram
60. Original letter dated 30.07.1968 received by Pandit Leel Ram Ex.PW 1/64 from L.R. Vyas, ITO along with summons and letter dated 30/31.07.1968 under the Income Tax Act
61. Letter dated 27.06.1968 received by Pandit Leela Ram from Ex.PW 1/65 L.R.Vyas, ITO
62. Letter dated 08/09.07.1968 received by Pandit Leela Ram from Ex.PW 1/66 L.R. Vyas, ITO
63. Original of letter dated 20.07.1968 received by Pandit Leela Ram Ex.PW 1/67 from L.R.Vyas, ITO
64. Original of letter dated 04/05.10.1968 received by Pandit Leela Ex.PW 1/68 Ram from ITO
65. Certified copy of Memorandum of partition dated 01.04.1969 Ex.PW 1/69 between Pandit Leela Ram and his sons
66. Copy of Partnership dated 10.04.1969 between Pandit Leela Ex.PW 1/70 Ram and his sons
67. Copy of schedule annexed with partnership deed dated Ex.PW 1/71 10.04.1969 between Pandit Leela Ram and his sons CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 31/73 32
68. Carbon copy of the acknowledgment of registration of fir (Form B) Ex.PW 1/72 dt. 27.05.10970 issued by Registrar of Firms giving registration no. 1145/70 along with Form A
69. Certified copy of release deed dated 17.03.1969 Ex.PW 1/73
70. Certified copy of release deed dated 02.06.1972 along with its Ex.PW 1/74 English translation
71. Certified copy of Deed of Partition dated 19.06.1971 Ex.PW 1/75
72. Certified copy of the assessment order for the assessment year Ex.PW 1/76 19621963
73. Certified copy of the assessment order for the assessment year Ex.PW 1/77 19631964
74. Certified copy of the assessment order for the assessment year Ex.PW 1/78 19641965
75. Certified copy of the assessment order for the assessment year Ex.PW 1/79 19651966
76. Certified copy of the assessment order for the assessment year Ex.PW 1/80 19671968
77. Certified copy of the order dated 10.04.1980 issued by the Ex.PW 1/82 Appellate Asst. Commissioner
78. Certified copy of the assessment order passed by WTO for the Ex.PW 1/83 assessment year 19631964
79. Certified copy of the assessment order passed by WTO for the Ex.PW 1/84 assessment year 19641965
80. Certified copy of the assessment order passed by WTO for the Ex,PW 1/85 assessment year 19651966
81. Certified copy of the assessment order passed by WTO for the Ex.PW 1/86 assessment year 19671968
82. Photocopy of complaint dated 22.01.1994 given to SHO, PS, Ex.PW 1/87 Daryaganj
83. Photocopy of complaint dated 15.04.1995 given to SHO, PS, Ex. PW 1/88 Daryaganj
84. Original disclaimer deed executed by Sh. Gurdial Singh in favour Ex.PW 1/89 of plaintiffs
85. Photocopy of GPA issued by Pandit Leela Ram in favour of Mark Q Qabul Singh and Jugti Ram alongwith its English translation
86. Exhibit marked as PW 1/90 is already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/54) PW 2 Sh. Shivajit Yadav relied on following documents: CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 32/73 33 Srl. Description of document Exhibits No. No.
1. Original sale deed dated 10.04.1963 which is registered at Srl. Ex.PW 2/1 No. 2823 in additional book no.1 Volume no. 964 on pages 8892 dated 17.4.1963.
2. Original sale deed dated 10.04.1963 which is registered at Srl. Ex.PW 2/2 No. 2821 in additional book no.1 Volume no. 964 on pages 7882 dated 17.4.1963.
3. Original record of Sale Deed dated 10.04.1963 which is Ex.PW 2/3 registered at Srl. No. 2822 in additional book no.1 Volume no. 964 on pages 8387 dated 17.4.1963.
4. Original of Sale Deed dated 20.07.1963 which is registered at Ex.PW 2/4 Srl. No. 5182 in additional book no.1 volume No. 1008 on pages 11145 registered on 27.7.1973
5. Certified copy of the document registered at Srl. No. 5354 on Ex.PW 2/5 09.08.1963 in Book No. 1 Volume No. 547 at pages 268271
6. Original document registered at Srl. No. 4829 on 02.08.1963 in Ex.PW 2/6 Book No. 1 Volume no. 547 at pages 6772
7. Original document registered at Srl. No. 3929 registered at Ex.PW 2/7 19.8.1964 in Book No. 1 Volume No. 572 at pages 245253
8. Original document registered at Srl. No. 8523 on 07.01.1963 in Ex.PW 2/8 Book No.1 Volume No. 530 at pages 127137
9. Certified copy of the document registered at Srl. No. 8823 on Ex.PW 2/9 15.1.1963 in Book No.1 Volume no. 530 at pages 298307
10. Original document registered at Srl. No. 1435 on 05.06.1963 in Ex.PW 2/10 Book No. 1 Volume no. 539 at pages 177185
11. Original document dated 04.06.1963 registered at Srl. No. 4111 Ex.PW 2/11 on 10.06.1963 in additional Book No.1. Volume no. 988 at pages 165170
12. Original document dated 24.09.1963 registered at Srl. No. 6593 Ex,PW 2/12 on 26.09.1963 in Book No.1 Volume No. 552 at pages 0511
13. Certified copy of the document registered at Srl. No. 6583 on Ex.PW 2/13 27.09.1963 in Book No.1 Volume No. 550 at pages 352357
14. Certified copy of the document registered at Srl. No. 1350 on Ex.PW 2/14 03.03.1972 in additional Book No. 1 volume no. 2840 at pages 01116
15. Certified copy of the document registered at Srl. No. 1794 on Ex.PW 2/15 18.3.1969 in Additional Book No.1 Volume No. 2143 at pages 164169
16. Certified copy of the document registered at Srl. No. 3927 on Ex.PW 2/16 02.06.1972 in additional book no.1 volume no. 2916 at pages 32 61 CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 33/73 34 PW 3 is Sh. L. Baxia, JA (Ahlmad) from the Court of Sh. Nikhil Chopra, ADJ02 (South) Saket New Delhi. (Witness has already examined as PW3 and recalled for providing further documents as per order dated 05.08.2019). The witness has brought the summoned record. The witness had seen Ex.IP49/W2/1 on the original file of the case titled UOI versus Kanta Devi & Ors and certified copy of the same is Ex.PW1/2 in the present case file. The witness had also seen Ex. PW1/4 (collectively) in the present case which were certified copies of the statements of Sh. Madanlal Mittal, Bhagwan Sahai, Kailash Kumar, Leela Dhar Sharma, Mahabir Singh, Vijender Kumar, Ram Prakash, L.R. Byas, P.R. Monga, Prem Raj/Prem Dass/Prem Singh which were part of the judicial record in case titled UOI Vs. Kanta Devi & Ors pending in the Court of Sh. Nikhil chopra ADJ02 (south) Saket, New Dehi, u/s 3031 of the Land Acquisition Act. The witness had compared the certified copies of Ex. PW1/4 (colly.) with the judicial record brought by him.
PW4 ASI Amarjeet Singh from PS Darya Ganj is a summoned witness. The witness was summoned to produce the record pertaining to the complaints dated 22.01.1994 and 15.04.1995 lodged by Pt. Prem Raja, Manager of M/s. MLG Colonizers, 4/5E, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. He has deposed CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 34/73 35 that the record of any such complaint stood destroyed vide order No. 14163228/Genl ( R)/DCP/C dated 29.05.2017 and annexed the communication by the SHO PS Darya Ganj in this respect addressing the court concerned. Certified copy of the order of weeding out and proposal for destruction of record is collectively marked as Mark X. PW5 is Sh. L. Baxia, JA (Ahlmad) from the Court of Sh. Nikhil Chopra, ADJ02 (South) Saket New Delhi. (Witness has already examined as PW3 and recalled for providing further documents as per order dated 05.08.2019). The witness has also seen the document already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/57 to Ex. PW 1/60 which were the correct certified copies of the original brought by him. The witness has also seen the document already exhibited as Ex. Pw 1/72 which was the correct certified copy of the original brought by him. The witness had brought the summoned record i.e. the judicial file bearing LAC Case no. 72/16 titled "UOI Vs. Kanta Devi Mittal & others". He had seen the certified copy of the amended memo of parties filed in the said case dated 19.12.2017 and compared it with the original in the file brought by him and state that it was the correct certified copy. The said document is Ex.PW 5/1. The witness has also seen certified copy of the complaint addressed to the SHO PS CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 35/73 36 Darya Ganj, made by Sh. Prem Raj, Managing Director of MLG Colonizers & Traders (P) Ltd. Dated 22.01.1994 and compared it with the original in the file brought by him and stated it to be the correct certified copy. The said document is exhibited as Ex.PW5/2. The witness has also seen certified copy of the complaint dated 15.4.1995 addressed to the SHO PS Darya Ganj, made by Sh. Prem Raj , and compared it with the carbon copy in the file brought by him and stated it to be the correct copy. The said document is Ex.PW5/3. Certified copy of an Urdu document bearing stamp and signatures of Sub Registrar, Delhi Nazul Sub Distt. Dated 22.5.1954. he has compared with the original file and stated it to be a correct copy. The said document is Ex.PW 5/4. The witness has also seen the documents already exhibited as Ex.PW1/55 and Ex.PW1/56, Ex.PW1/76 to Ex.PW 1/80, Ex.PW1/82, Ex.PW1/83, Ex.PW1/84 to Ex.PW1/86 and stated them to be the correct certified copies of the originals brought by him.
PW6 Sh. Mohit Bhardwaj , Inspector, Central Circle 04, Income Tax Department has brought a letter dated 21.08.2019 issued by Sh. Tridib Kumar Munsi, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 04, New Delhi as per which the record being very old record, have been weeded out. The said letter is Ex. PW 6/1.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 36/73 37 PW7 Sh. Manish Kumar, Data Entry Operator summoned from the office of Registrar of Societies & Firms. The witness has brought the original file of M/s. Lila Ram & Sons. The witness had seen the copy of the forms A and B on the judicial file. These documents on the judicial file were in English where the record brought by witness i.e. forms A and B are in Hindi language. The English documents are already exhibited as Ex.PW 1/72. Photocopies of the forms A & B in Hindi are marked as Mark PQ - 72 (collectively). The witness has also seen the partnership deed Ex. PW 1/70 on judicial file , copy of which were not on his record. The witness has deposed that he had seen the complete record pertaining to the file of M/s. Lila Ram and Sons and there is no notification no. CI/Admn/RFS1/2009/1903 dated 26.03.2010.
18 To prove its case defendants examined following witnesses: D4W1 Shri Sandeep Saini relied on following documents: Srl. Description of document Exhibits No. No.
1. Certified copy of the judgment dt. 25.3.1969 Ex. DW 1/1
2. Certified copy of the application u/s 18 of Land Ex. DW 1/2 Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) for reference to the court dated 07.03.1964
3. Certified copy of the judgment dated Ex. DW 1/3 26.07.1967 CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 37/73 38
4. Certified copy of Civil Writ Petition no. Ex. DW 1/4 1032/1995 filed before Hon'ble Delhi High Court
5. Certified copy of the judgment dated Ex.D4W1/DA 24.11.1995 in writ petition no. 1032/95 titled as Hukum Chand & Ors. Vs. LAC & others
6. Certified copy of judgment dated 05.08.1996 Ex.D4W1/DB
7. Application seeking reference u/s 18 of the LA Ex.D4W1/P1 Act dated 13.08.1963 in respect of the lands in khasra no. 347 (min.) and Khasra no.
2636/1776D5(e & f)/W1 Sh. Chhedi Lal Maurya was examined as defence witness. The witness has brought the summoned record of LAC no. 513/65 titled as Leela Ram Vs. Union of India, date of decision dt. 25.3.1969, Goswar no. 105/D. The certified copy of the joint reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by Leela Ram (2) chander Singh (3) al singh (4) Ram Swaroop (5) Kishan chand which were already exhibited as Ex. D4W/1/2. The receipt executed by Pandit Leela Ram in respect of the amount is Rs. 19,610/ from the court of Sh. F. S. Gil, the then ADJ Delhi is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/D8. Application for payment of compensation filed and signed by Sh. Pandit Leela Ram, the above said case is already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/D7. The copy of the statement u/s 19 of the Land Acquisition Act forwarded by the LAC along with the above said joint reference petition u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is already Ex. PW 1/D11 (5). The judgment dated 25.03.1969 passed by the CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 38/73 39 Hon'ble Court of Sh. F. S. Gill, ADJ in the above said case is already Ex. D4/W1/1. He has further relied upon the following documents: Srl. Description of document Exhibits No. No.
1. Separate payment application moved by Sh. Ex.D5E F1/1 Dal Singh
2. Application of Sh. Kishan Chand and Sh. Ram Ex. D5EF1/2 and Ex.D5E F 1/3 Swaroop
3. Receipt executed by Sh. Kishan chand and Sh. Ex. D5EF1/4 and Ex. D5E F 1/5 Dal Singh
4. Certified copy of the claim petition by four Ex. D5 EF/W1/6 persons namely Pandit Leela Ram, Sh.
Chander Singh, Ram Swaroop and Sh. Dal Singh U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act
5. Certified copy of the statement U/s 19 of LA Ex.D5 EF/W1/7 Act,1894 filed along with the joint petition u/s 18 of LA Act D5(e&f)/W2 Ms. Swapna relied on following documents: Srl. Description of document Exhibits No. No.
1. Certified copy of IA No. 2/1997 issued on Ex. D5(e&F)/W2A 22.04.1997 and dismissed as withdrawn on 07.04.1997 D5(e&f)/W2 Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Patwari from the office L.A branch was summoned. He has been summoned on behalf of ADM/ LA South East and DM South East to produce as order dated 16.3.1995 passed by Sh. Surjeet Lal, then LAC in case titled as Hukum chand & Ors Vs. CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 39/73 40 Kanta Devi & Ors in respect of award no. 4/19941995 of village Tuglakabad. He has brought the file i.e. Part no. 1 from pages no. 1 to 466 which was not the summoned record.
Thereafter on 27.09.2019 Ld counsel for defendant no. 5 gave up the witness and closed evidence on behalf of L.Rs No. 5 (e & f).
19 After closure of evidence final arguments were heard.
20 I have gone through the material on record, documents, evidence, written arguments/submissions, case laws and detailed oral submissions made by Ld. Counsel for parties.
21 My issue wise opinion is as follows: ISSUE NO. 1 & 2 (framed on 25.09.2004) Issue no. 1 Whether Pandit Lila Ram and Chander Singh agreed for purchasing the suit land as per terms mentioned in paras 2(a) to 2(g) of the plaint? OPP.
Issue no.2 Whether pursuant to the terms mentioned in para Nos.2(a) to 2(g) of the plaint, Pt. Lila Ram and Chander Singh purchased the land mentioned in paras no. 4 to 18 of the plaint benami in the names mentioned therein. If so, what effect?
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 40/73 41 22 It is the case of the plaintiff that Pandit Lila Ram and his nominees on one hand while Sh. Chander Singh and his nominees on other hand have purchased lands mentioned in the plaint in following terms:
(a) Pandit Lila Ram or his nominee or nominees as party of one group and Sh. Chander Singh or his nominee or nominees as party of the other group would make diverse purchases of diverse lands in Delhi in their co owners.
(b) Funds required for such purchases would make available by Pt. Lila Ram and the same would carry interest at the rate of Rs.12/ percent per annum with yearly rests. Credit would be given by Pt. Lila Ram to Sh. Chander Singh for the amounts including interest which were then due to Sh. Chander Singh from Pt. Lila Ram.
(c) The shares of the two groups in the land sopurchased would be as agreed upon from time to time at the time of purchases of such lands.
(d) Any investment made by a party in excess of the share of the investment required of him for his share or lands together with interest will be a first charge, burden and lien on the share of land of the other party.
(e) At the time of the final accounting and partition of the lands between Pt. Lila Ram and his associates on one side and Sh. Chander Singh and his associates on the other side, if any amount was found payable by Sh. Chander Singh, he was to be given an option either to pay the money due with interest personally by sale of his share of lands or to surrender his share of lands to Pt. Lila Ram as if the same was held by him as benami to Pt. Lila Ram.
(f) Till the final accounting was done and the amount due was paid by Sh. Chander Singh, the entire share of the lands so purchased in the name of Sh. Chander Singh and his as ciates were to be treated as lands of Pt. Lila Ram held benami in the names of Sh. Chander Singh CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 41/73 42 and his associates.
(g) Pt. Lila Ram was to be personally responsible for the commitments made in his name and in name of his nominees. Similarly, Sh. Chander Singh was to be personally responsible for the commitments made in his name and in the name of his nominees.
23 From the pleadings i.e. replication to the written statement of defendant no. 1 further has further explained these terms in the following manner: The case of the plaintiff is that the lands were purchased with the funds provided by Pandit Lila Ram in the various names mentioned in the plaint with the condition that defendant no. 1 had the option to pay the money due to the account relating to purchase of lands with 12 percent per annum interest and that if he did not exercise that option, the lands would be deemed to have been purchased by Pandit Lila Ram benami in his name. So, Pandit Lila Ram during his life time, and the plaintiffs after his death, have been showing to the Income Tax and Wealth Tax authorities all accounts of purchase and sale of lands, including lands in suit and accounts of the defendant no. 1 relating to the same. So no question of showing these lands as benami of Pandit Lila Ram could or did arise till defendant no. 1 refused to make payment for the same.
24 On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that the lands existed in the name of the persons mentioned in the sale deeds and no funds to purchase the same were provided by Pandit Lila Ram as benami.
25 It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that since CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 42/73 43 defendants have plainly denied the contribution of Pandit Lila Ram, in purchase of land, as benami, for the defendants, the only fact to be proved by the plaintiff would be the payment made by Pandit Lila Ram, and the rest gets proved. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that all the alleged, so call arrangement, i.e. condition (a) to (g) had allegedly happened in the life time of Pandit Lila Ram. Pandit Lila Ram had not disputed anything about the title of the persons mentioned in the title deeds, there is no other person who could depose about these alleged oral arrangement. It is stated that plaintiff examined PW1 who happens to be grandson of Pandit Lila Ram and was only 11 years of age at the time of execution of sale deeds. It is argued that plaintiff no. 6 is the son of Pandit Lila Ram who could have thrown some light on the facts of the case, but not examined by the plaintiff. So, plaintiff has not brought the best evidence before the court. The case lacks evidence regarding alleged "benami transaction". On the other hand, it is controverted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the abovesaid arrangement (a) to (g) is very well supported with documentary evidence and plaintiff has proved its case regarding "benami transaction".
It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the contesting defendants is representing defendant no. 5 who had already in his written statement admitted Pandit Lila Ram CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 43/73 44 as benami owner. The contest was made only by defendant no.1, 2, 3 and 4 who are exparte and cannot contest the matter. It is stated that decree be straightway passed against defendant no.5 as no contest was offered by him. On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. Counsel for defendant that when no relief is sought by plaintiff against defendant no. 5, no decree could be passed against the said defendant.
26 As to whether the decree can be passed straightway is concerned, the law in this regard is mention in "Sheik Abdul Quam & Ors. Vs. Mulla Ali Bhai and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 309". As per this judgment, if no relief is sought by plaintiff against any defendant, court cannot pass any decree against the said defendant. Admittedly, plaintiff has not sought any relief against defendant no.5 so no decree can be passed against defendant no.5.
As far as the present case, on merits, is concerned, admittedly, plaintiff no. 6 i.e. Manohar Lal Atri (being alive) had not come to the court for stating the facts of the plaint. PW1 is the grandson of Pandit Lila Ram. This PW1 has disposed in his examinationinchief (verification part) about the source of his information about para 3 (a) to para (g) i.e. the condition of arrangements, "as per his own knowledge". However, in his crossexamination, he has stated that "I do not CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 44/73 45 have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the present case". During the later part of his cross examination he has deposed "I do not know as to since when they (Pandit Lila Ram and Chander Singh) were friends as I have only heard about from other people. It is correct that I do not have personal knowledge about facts deposed in para 3(a) to (3g)". So, this shows that this PW1 does not have any personal knowledge about the conditions of paragraph 3(a) to 3(g) of the plaint or of his affidavit of evidence. In further crossexamination he has deposed "there is no written record of such understanding. I was 11 years old in the year 1962 when the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 was executed and I had not gone to meet Pandit Lila Ram in 1962. Vol. I was told about this fact by my uncle Prem Raj when he fell sick in the year 2010". This further shows that this witness was just 11 years of age at the time of execution of Ex.PW1/1 and was thus having no knowledge about the understandings mentioned in paragraphs 3(a) to 3(g). As far as volunteered part is concerned, this fact is not mentioned anywhere in his evidence i.e. his examinationinchief so cannot be believed.
So, in these circumstances, this witness PW1, in oral testimony, failed to prove on record that there was any understanding in terms of paragraphs 3(a) to 3(g) between the parties.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 45/73 46 27 Now as per paragraphs 3(a) to 3(g) is concerned, the alleged transaction are to follow as following:
(a) Pandit Lila Ram was to make funds available for purchase of land with condition that these funds will carry interest @12% per annum.
(b) The funds if made available by Pandit Lila Ram for some other person is to be considered as investment.
(c) At some point of time, some accounting is to be done and the accounts are to be tallied.
(d) If any amount is found due, towards any other person, then he has to pay that amount.
(e) Till the final due amount is not paid to Pandit Lila Ram the lands would be deemed to have been purchased by Pandit Lila Ram as benami in his name.
As far as the "benami" is concerned, transactions normally happens as follows:
(i) Let "A" is the owner of a land.
(ii) "B" purchases it from "A" on consideration (sale price).
(iii) On the asking of "B", "A" executes title deeds in favour of "C".
So, the transactions took place in one go. "B" can claim himself to be benami owner of the property as the money was given by him to "A" though the sale documents were executed in the name of "C". There is no "deferment" of title of "B". He becomes benami owner, the moment sale documents are executed in favour of "C".
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 46/73 47 28 Now in the present case no such thing is happening. As per the conditions mentioned by plaintiff in paragraphs 3(a) to 3(g), the alleged title of "benami owner"
has to allegedly pass on Pandit Lila Ram when, after accounting, something due towards him is not paid by Chander Singh. So, this does not shows a "benami transaction". On the other hand, if we examined all these these conditions (a to
g), they appear more or less to be alleged loan or any investment i.e. money lent to Chander Singh or other persons for the purposes of jointly purchasing the land and thereafter getting the accounts done of that money between Pandit Lila Ram and Chander Singh.
29 Now let us examine these facts of arrangement (a) to (g) i.e. as to whether the same is also reflected in the documentary evidence at the relevant time i.e. around the lifetime of Pandit Lila Ram and shortly after his death. During his life time, after the acquisition of his land in Tughlakabad. Pandit Lila Ram, jointly with Chander Singh, Dal Singh, Kishan Chand and Ram Swroop, filed a petitions Ex.PW1/D11(5), Ex.D/5 (EF) W1/6 before Land Collector Acquisition for claiming compensation and enhancement of compensation. The said application starts "the applicants are owner of land as per the details given here under with khasra numbers and the CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 47/73 48 shares of each applicant therein". Nowhere in this application, there is any reflection by Sh. Pandit Lila Ram about the alleged arrangement of (a) to (g). On the contrary, Pandit Lila Ram himself admitting the separate ownership of Chander Singh, Dal Singh, Kishan Chand and Ram Swroop.
30 There was also a Civil Suits bearing no. 532/78 (Ex.PW1/D10) and 533/78 (Ex.PW1/D9), filed by plaintiffs herein against Chander Singh and disposed off. In these suits, these plaintiffs are seeking rendition of account from Chander Singh. Nowhere in these litigation, the plaintiffs have spoken any iota of relationship of Pandit Lila Ram visavis Chander Singh etc., in terms of arrangement (a) to (g).
So, from these documents, it is clear that there is no reflection of any benami ownership of Pandit Lila Ram vis avis land existing in the name of Chander Singh etc. 31 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that in the Income Tax Returns, Pandit Lila Ram had shown the land, existing in the name of Chander Singh etc., as his own land being benami owner thereof. It is stated that this is a sufficient proof to show that the land was bought benami. It is further stated that as per Ex.PW1/60, even Chander Singh & Ors. have admitted that they were benami on behalf of Pandit Lila Ram. As far as these submissions are concerned, from the CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 48/73 49 perusal of different proceedings before the Income Tax Authorities (from Ex.PW1/76 to Ex.PW1/86) are concerned, it speaks about some HUF. Even the plaintiff has proved a document Ex.PW1/4 (colly). In this document, there is a statement of one Sh. L. R. Vyas dated 05.04.2003. It is stated "it is correct that Ex.IP49WE/1/1 relates to HUF as per stated. The status is of HUF in all the orders". There is no pleadings of the plaintiff regarding this HUF nor there is any evidence in this regard. As far as Ex.PW1/60 is concerned, it is a notice dated 21.08.1968 issued to Pandit Lila Ram. Here also the IT Authority is seeking explanation regarding the HUF being partner of some firms. In this notice, the IT Authorities, it was claimed by Chander Singh that he was "benami partner" in the firms. Nowhere, from this document, it can be concluded that Chander Singh was benami of Pandit Lila Ram in these sale deeds/land, as claimed by the plaintiff, in the plaint.
Now there is a judgment relied by parties Bina Pani Paul Vs. Pratima Ghosh, 2007 VI SCC 100 which states that the burden of proving of benami nature of transaction lies on the person who alleges the transaction to be benami. In Valliammal Vs. Subramanyam (2004) 7 SCC 233, Hon. Supreme Court had stated that, in order to determine, whether a transaction was benami following six circumstances can be taken as guide: CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 49/73 50 (1) The source from which the purchase money came; (2) The nature and possession of the property, after the purchase;
(3) Motive, if any for giving the transaction a benami colour;
(4) The position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar;
(5) The custody of the title deeds after the sale; and (6) The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.
Let us examine, from the material on record, the transaction in the present case.
(1) Admittedly, after going through the sale deeds (admitted documents by parties), in some of the documents, it is mentioned that the consideration money was paid by Pandit Lila Ram, though the said sale deed in somebody's other name.
(2) From the perusal of the record and from the manner in which the properties are dealt, it appears that from the documentary evidence, the agricultural land were always in possession of the person in whose name were mentioned in the sale deeds. No other evidence was brought by the plaintiff in contrary to that. (3) As far as motive is concerned, no motive has been brought before the court by the plaintiff as to why those lands were not bought by Pandit Lila Ram in his own name but in the name of Chander Singh etc. (4) As far as relationship is concerned, the plaintiff has not stated any legal type of relationship between Pandit Lila Ram and Chander Singh etc. However, in some of the documents relied by the plaintiff like Ex.PW1/4 (colly), statement of Sh. Prem Singh s/o Lila Ram, he had termed Chander Singh as partner with Pandit Lila Ram. However, in the present case, plaintiff has suppressed this fact. So, plaintiff failed to prove on record about any legal relationship of Pandit Lila Ram visavis Chander Singh and others which necessitated for the alleged benami transaction. (5) As far as custody of title deeds after sale are concerned, it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 50/73 51 Chander Singh and other persons, in whose name the sale deeds were, had sold the properties of that sale deeds to some other persons, without the knowledge of Pandit Lila Ram or plaintiffs. This shows that those persons were having custody of sale deeds. No doubt some of the sale deeds were proved by plaintiff out of their custody.
(6) As far as handling of the properties after sale transaction, it appears that the person in whose name the properties existed had dealt them as true owners. Even from joint application of compensation by Pandit Lila Ram and Chander Singh etc., show that Pandit Lila Ram had not objected the true ownership of other person in the said application for the purposes of getting compensation.
So, in these circumstances, as discussed above, it is difficult to ascertain that the alleged sale deed transactions were benami.
Thus, there does not appear any documentary evidence also that, in the lands mentioned in paragraph 4 onwards in the plaint, Chander Singh etc. were benami of Pandit Lila Ram.
32 Now both parties have admitted the sale deeds of the entire land mentioned in paragraph 4 onwards in the plaint. If the parties admit any document to have been executed, there is Sec.91 of Indian Evidence Act which is as follows:
91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents.-- When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence1 shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 51/73 52 other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.--When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence2 shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained."
Exception 1.--When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.
Exception 2.--Wills 2[admitted to probate in 3[India]] may be proved by the probate.
Explanation 1.--This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one. Explanation. 2.-- Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved.
Explanation 3.--The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
According to this, between the parties, who have signed that document or the persons claiming through that, cannot dispute the contents of the said document unless it is proved that the said document was only a camouflage. None of the parties have disputed the contents of the sale deed. Nowhere, these sale deeds were disputed to carry different intention, other than, the contents written therein. So, in view of Sec.91 of Indian Evidence Act, no other interpretation of the CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 52/73 53 contents of those sale deeds is permissible.
33 In view of my aforesaid discussion, plaintiff could not prove on record that Pandit Lila Ram & persons on his behalf AND Chander Singh & persons on his behalf agreed to purchase the suit land as per the terms mention in paragraphs 3(a) to 3(g) of the plaint.
34 In view of the above it is held that the land mentioned in paragraph 4 to 18 were not purchased as benami in the names of persons mentioned therein.
35 So, in effect, the contents of the sale deeds are to be read as if the persons mentioned therein are the owners of the land qua those sale deeds.
So, these issues are decided in these terms.
Additional Preliminary issue dated 18.08.1982 What is the effect of the provisions contained in Sec.281 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the maintainability of this suit and has the plaintiff complied with its requirement?
36 The relevant provision of Sec.281A, of Income Tax at that point of time is as follows: Effect of failure to furnish information in respect of properties held benami. (1) No suit to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 53/73 54 property is held or against any other person, shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a person (hereafter in this section referred to as the claimant) claiming to be the real owner of such property unless:
(a) the income, if any, from such property has been disclosed in any return of income furnished by the claimant under this Act; or
(b) such property has been disclosed in any return of net wealth furnished by the claimant under the WealthTax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957); or
(c) notice in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars in respect of the property has been given by the claimant to the Income Tax Officer.
(2) The IncomeTax Officer shall, on an application made by any person in the prescribed manner and on payment of the prescribed fees, issue for the purposes of a suit referred to in sub section(1), relevant extracts from the return furnished by such person under this Act or the WealthTax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), or a certified copy of any notice given by such person under clause (c) of subsection (1), within fourteen days from the date of receipt of the application therefor.
(3) This section shall not apply to any suit of a value not exceeding two thousand rupees which is tried by,
(a) A Court of Small Causes constituted under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (15 of 1882), or the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887); or
(b) a court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, by or under any enactment for the time being in force, in the exercise of such jurisdiction.
37 As far the law laid in this section is concerned, it debars a suit if the subject matter of the suit i.e. land or money is not disclosed by the plaintiff in its income tax returns. As far CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 54/73 55 as the income tax documents/documents (Ex.PW1/76 to Ex.PW1/86) relating to the proceedings before Income Tax Authorities are concerned and are filed in this case, there is reference of these land transactions (though with some HUF). So, for going through the same, the suit cannot be dismissed being barred by this section. So, in these circumstances, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 1, 2 & 6 (dated 09.04.1980) Issue no. 1 Is the suit within time?
Issue no. 2 Is the suit bad for multifariousness?
Issue no. 6 Is the suit as constituted maintainable?
38 This issue of limitation is the core issue to decide a case. It is submitted by plaintiff that the suit land was purchased jointly by Pandit Lila Ram etc. and Chander Singh etc. in terms of arrangement (a) to (g). As per the plaintiff, Chander Singh was to render the accounts which was invested by Pandit Lila Ram but on his behalf. If he failed to render the accounts, it is deemed to be considered that Pandit Lila Ram is benami owner of the land which exists in the name of Chander Singh etc. The last account entry is of the year CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 55/73 56 December 1966. No accounts were settled by Chander Singh. So, the suit was filed for rendition of account as well as partition and possession of the land.
On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that there was no occasion of investment by Pandit Lila Ram on behalf of Chander Singh etc. It is further stated that all this litigation was initiated by the LRs of Pandit Lila Ram after his death. It is stated that the last entry, though not admitted, is of the period December 1966. The suit is filed in June, 1978 and thus barred by limitation.
As far as evidence of PW1 is concerned, as already discussed above, this PW1 does not have any personal knowledge about the transactions. So that means he does not have any personal knowledge about any money paid to or received from Chander Singh. As far as document Ex.PW1/4 (colly) is concerned, PW1P49W2 Sh. Prem Singh regarding this case is concerned, deposed as following: "Pandit Lila Ram did not a (raised) formal demand for the any amount from Chander Singh, Dal Singh or Ram Swaroop relating to sale deed dated 10.10.62. Vol. Though it was brought to notice that amount was due on account of our relationship. We made no demand in writing from these persons. It is correct that no written demand has been made till the filing of suit no. 885/78. vol. But we had asked for the payment as even our father died. The reason why my father initiated no legal proceedings between 1962 when the sale deed was executed and 1972 when he died because he was most reluctant to have litigation with anybody. Vol. He was even reticent to demand back payment because that was his nature. The filing of the case was our last resort. Before adoption this last resort we did not demand anything in writing though orally we have been demanding"
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 56/73 57 Even from the plaint of this case, there is no date mentioned as to when any alleged amount was asked by plaintiffs. Admittedly, no notice of recovery of money or settling of accounts is issued by the plaintiffs.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant has stated that there was never any issue involving the ownership of the land or consequently the recovery of possession of those lands. It is stated that this issue was fictitiously made by one of the children of Pandit Lila Ram so as to get compensation from the government of the land mentioned in sale deed Ex.PW1/1 (paragraph 4 of the plaint). It is stated that due to this reason, there was no demand of money ever by anybody from the defendants or the issue of partition or repossession of any part of land. As far as these submissions are concerned, whether or not there the issue of any repossession of land is fictitiously to bring the suit within limitation or not, is to be seen.
In this regard, from Ex.PW1/4, statement of Sh. Prem Singh dated 23.08.2003, it is mentioned "it is correct that Dal Singh and Ram Swaroop received the compensation from the reference court. Vol. As the amount is to be paid to the persons whose names are mentioned but but it was paid to us by them. I cannot state whether we had raised the plea of benami transaction in respect of the aforesaid two khasra numbers at any point of time".
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 57/73 58 Now admittedly, from this statement of Prem Singh, he had not stated that Dal Singh and Ram Swroop were the benami owners or they got the compensation benami on behalf of Lila Ram. So, this shows that plaintiffs from the very beginning were not interested in getting back their land in whose name the sale deed existed. So, the point of the defendant that the issue of partition of land or repossession of any land was raised fictitiously, appears to be forceful and accepted. Further more, in the plaint and even in the prayer paragraph, there is no specificity about the land for which the partition and possession is sought. It is only stated that "a partition be effected of the lands available and the plaintiffs 1 to 6 be given exclusive possession of their share of the land". So there is no proper pleadings i.e. khasra numbers etc., about the land sought for partition and possession. This also shows that plaintiff was not serious about partition or possession of land and appears that the prayer of partition or possession is incorporated just with effort to bring the suit within limitation.
Also from the perusal of paragraph 18 (d) of the plaint, corresponding paragraphs in written statement of defendant no. 1 and replication to this written statement. As per this part of pleadings, it is mentioned that defendant no.1 entered into a sale agreement with one third person. That CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 58/73 59 third person i.e. Chandi Ram brought a suit of specific performance against Chander Singh (defendant no.1, who is claimed by plaintiff as benami for Pandit Lila Ram). This case ultimately got compromised in which Chander Singh received money. Plaintiffs herein, as claimed by themselves, only sought rendition of account and not challenged the land deal. So, they had not gone for recovery of possession of their alleged land which was held benami by Chander Singh and sold to Chandi Ram. This shows that plaintiffs were only interested money/rendition of accounts only. Hence, this shows that plaintiff have brought the relief of partition and recovery of possession of land as an effort to bring the suit within limitation.
Now all these instances shows that plaintiffs were never interested in recovery of possession of the land or its partition. The one of the prayers sought in this regard appears to be an effort to bring the time barred suit in limitation by incorporating the relief of recovery of immovable property.
39 So, it appears that plaintiff was only seeking rendition of account which is reflected in all the three alternate prayers sought in the plaint. Now as per the records, the last entry is of December 1966. The period of limitation to seek rendition of accounts is of three years. As per the plaintiffs CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 59/73 60 themselves, even during the life time of Pandit Lila Ram (died in the year 1972), the plaintiffs have asked for accounts from the defendants. The suit is filed in the year 1978. Even from the date of death of Pandit Lila Ram the suit is beyond the period of three years and is thus time barred.
40 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendants that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable because plaintiff himself does not know as to what relief he wants from the court. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the facts of the plaint justifies the relief sought by the plaintiff.
Now from the perusal of the record, it appears that plaintiff is seeking rendition of account, partition and possession of the lands mentioned in the plaint. On the other hand, he is also seeking declaration that he is entitled for compensation or that the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery a Rs.3,37,737/ including compensation. So, from the nature of the relief sought, it appears that plaintiffs were not clear as to what relief they wanted. So, the suit with regard to prayer paragraphs, is not proper.
It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff has sought the recovery of possession of the lands mentioned in the suit which was bought on different dates and CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 60/73 61 by virtue of different sale deeds and due to that reason separate suits should have been filed. As far as this arguments are concerned, I do not think, they have some force because if one goes only on contents of the plaint, plaintiff has sought partition and possession (though as already said to have been included as an effort to extend limitation) and the same can be included in one suit. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is not hit by multifariousness.
ISSUE NO. 6 (dated 25.09.2004) Whether any part of the suit land has already been acquired by the Govt. and if so, what land and to what effect? OPP.
41 During the course of the arguments and even during the proceedings of the case, it was sought from the parties as to whether any land is available of which the plaintiff is seeking partition of possession. Both the parties were directed to file affidavits in this regard and details of the land thereof. Both the parties have filed the affidavits. The court had opined that the details mentioned by both the parties is similar and all the lands mentioned in the plaint has been acquired. The details of the land by one of the parties is as follows: Sl. Para of Para of Khasra no. of Remarks No. Plaint written land CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 61/73 62 statement
1. 4(c) 4(c) 2121/700,2636/17 Compensation has already 76 Tughlakabad been received by Sh. Dal Singh and Sh. Ram Sarup for their respective shares.
2. 5(c) 5 644 Tughlakabad Compensation has already been received by Shri Leela Ram and Sh. Kishan Chand for their respective shares.
3. 6 (a) (i) 6 (a) (i) As mentioned in The whole land was paras 6(a)(i) and partitioned between Sh.
(ii) (ii)
a(ii) of the plaint Gurdial Singh and Sh.
Tughlakabad Chander Singh and sold away.
4. 7(b) 7(b) 612,613,2026/621, Compensation has already
2027/621,347,260 been received by Sh. Leela
9/718, Ram and Sh. Chander Singh
Tughlakabad for their respective share. The
remaining land was partitioned
and sold away by Sh. Chander
Singh and Sh. Leela Ram
5. 7(c)(d) 7(c)(d) 625,628,631,633, Compensation has already
634,717 been received by Sh. Leela
Tughlakabad Ram alone. Sh. Chander
Singh has no shares.
6. 9 9 As mentioned in Sh. Leela Ram and Sh.
subpara (a) of the Chander Singh have received plaint Tughlakabad compensation for their respective shares. Joint reference of Leela Ram and Chander Singh under Section 18 was decided by Sh. H.K.S. Malilk, Additional District Judge, Delhi, regarding Khasra No. 3841/121 awarding enhanced compensation to both in equal shares. Shri Chander Singh has received his share of compensation.
7. 10(d) 10 As mentioned in Kotla (P) Ltd. Had sold its half para 10(a) of the share to Sh.Jagdev Singh. Sh. plaint. Ladha Sarai Jagdev Singh sold his shares in Kh.No. 507/26/2 to Sh.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 62/73 63 Manohar Lal, plaintiff no. 6.
Sh. Jagdish Parsad also sold his share in Kh. No. 507/26/20 to Manohar Lal plaintiff no.6.
Sh. Jagdev Singh and Sh.Manohar Lal have received their shares of compensation in the said land. Sh. Jagdev Singh has also received compensation for the remaining land sold to him by Kotla (P) Ltd. Two references under Section 30/31 with regard to the share of Sh.
Jagdish Parshad, at the instance of the plaintiff are pending in the court of Shri P.L.Shingla, ADJ and are fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs on 16.4.1980. The applications of the plaintiffs for consolidation of these references as well as the references mentioned at S.No. 8 to 11, with the present suit were dismissed by Hon'be Mr. Justice Sultan Singh on the ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction to try these cases.
One case of Sh. Jagdish Parshad under Sec. 18 is also pending in the court of Sh.
H.K.S. Malik, ADJ.
8. 11(d) 11(d) As mentioned in Sh. Leela Ram had sold his para 11(a) except half share to Sh. Jagder Singh Kh.No. 480/223 who has received and 430/199 compensation for his share.
Ladha Sarai Reference under Sec. 30/31
with regard to the share of Sh.
Kishan Chand is pending in
the Court of Sh. P. L. Singhla,
ADJ and is fixed for evidence
of the plaintiffs on 16.04.1980.
Reference of Sh. Kishan
Chand under Sec. 18 is also
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 63/73
64
pending in the Court of Sh.
H.K.S. Malik, ADJ.
9. 12(d) 12(d) As mentioned in Leela Ram ½, Jag Pd. ½.
para 12A of the Leela Ram sold his half share
plaint. Ladha to Jai Singh who has received
Sarai. compensation.
10. 13(D) 13(D) As mentioned in Lila Ram ½. Ved Prakash ¼.
para no.13A of the Chander Singh ¼.
plaint. Lila Ram and Ved Prakash
Ladha Sarai sold their shares to Jai Singh
has received compensation.
11. 14(D) 14(D) As mentioned in Pt. Lila Ram ½ and Ved
para 14(A) of the Prakash ¼.
plaint. Ladha Sarai Kishan Chand ¼.
Lila Rama and Ved Prakash
have sold out their shares.
12. 15(B) 15(B) As mentioned in Lila Ram ½ Kishan ½
paras 15A(I) ,
15(II) of the plaint. Compensation has been received by both the parties in equal shares. However there was a reference under Sec.
3031 of the Act at the instance of Sh. Hukam Sigh with regard to the land mentioned in paras 15A(I) of the plaint. It was decided by Sh. N.C......, Additional Judge, awarding compensation to the heirs of Pt. Lila Ram, half and Kishan Chand half share. The claim of Hukam Singh was rejected.
Application of the plaintiffs to the court for payment of compensation.....share of Kishan with reference to para 15 have been filed by Pt. Lila Ram and Kishan Chand which are still pending.
42 As per this, all the land is acquired by government.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 64/73 65 However, during the course of the arguments, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that land mentioned in khasra no. 2918/2147 (303) and khasra no. 1772/1647 (104) of village Tughlakabad is not acquired. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the entire land is acquired. To this effect, there is a document Ex.DW4/D4 i.e. a Civil Writ Petition no. 1032/1995 filed by present plaintiffs seeking apportionment of compensation. In paragraph 1 of the said petition, it is mentioned that the land including the abovesaid lands that is of 2918/2147 (303) and khasra no. 1772/1647 (104) of village Tughlakabad has been acquired vide award no. 4/19941995 dated 17.05.1994. So, as per the admission by the plaintiffs themselves, I think this land is also acquired and no land is there available for partition or possession.
So, this issue is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 & 4 (dated 25.09.2004) Issue no. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of rendition of accounts, recovery and partition of land as alleged? OPP.
Issue no. 4 Whether Chander Singh defendant no. 1 failed to make the payment of his share as per aforesaid terms and if so, to what effect? OPP.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 65/73 66 43 As far as issue no. 3 is concerned, as already discussed above, neither Pandit Lila Ram or these plaintiffs, through any written document/legal demand notice have sought any recovery of money or rendition of accounts. The plaintiffs claimed the account recoverable from the defendants in terms of annexure A (Ex.PW1/54) annexed with plaint. It is further claimed that these calculations are made on the basis of documents Mark C, Mark D etc. It is stated that these documents were scrutinized even by the Income Tax Authorities and due to that reasons are authentic for the purposes of creating liability towards defendant Chander Singh. On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. Counsel for defendants that plaintiff failed to prove the accounts properly. It is further argued that the credibility of the documents i.e. from which the alleged accounts (annexure A) Ex.PW1/54 were made, were also pointed out by the income Tax Authorities as manipulated. So, the documents produced before the court are not correct and are manipulated.
Now in this regard, Ld. counsel for defendant point out document PW1/4 (colly) that there is a statement of IP4 9W1 Sh. L. R. Vyas dated 05.04.2003 which is as follows: It is correct that in my orders I have recorded that there were some fictitious loans of various amounts. Initially, I had reported the matter to the commissioner that amounts had been mentioned fictitiously as loan amounts CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 66/73 67 and losses in shares. The assessee accepted that there were fictitious and thereafter no further action taken. I had observed that these amounts were fictitious as they found no mention in the original books of account. Q Therefore, I put to you that the assessee was not maintaining regular books of account in the usual course? Ans. They had originally produced kuccha accounts and then at time of settlement they came forward with original books in which these entries were not made.
I do not remember whether Pandit Lila Ram had filed in his individual capacity. It is correct to suggest that at the time of settlement also the books were manipulated. The settlement was not filed before me as the commissioner had the powers and it would have been filed before him. Vol. It was the commissioner who had directed me to complete the assessment.
44 So, this shows that at the time of scrutiny of documents i.e. accounts etc., maintained by the plaintiff, before Income Tax Authorities, proper/correct accounts were not furnished. However, it is stated by this witness that the plaintiffs were having original books. So, this has caused a doubt about the preparation of Ex.PW1/54. Nowhere audited account has been produced in support of Ex.PW1/54. Hence, the authenticity of Ex.PW1/54 is not properly proved by the plaintiff by furnishing audited documents from which Ex.PW1/54 was made.
Hence Ex.PW1/54 does not inspire confidence of the court. This was the document through which plaintiff was seeking rendition of accounts. Due to the reasons given CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 67/73 68 above, I think no rendition of accounts could be directed by the court in this regard. Moreover, as already discussed, the relief for seeking rendition of account was already time barred at the time of filing of the case. So, issue no. 3 and 4 are decided in these terms.
ISSUE NO. 3 (dated 09.04.1980) Is the suit resjudicata in respect of some items claimed therein?
45 It is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that some land in khasra no. 2121/700 and khasra no. 2636/1776 (part of sale deed mentioned in paragraph 4 of plaint) in village Tughlakabad was acquired. Joint application was moved by Pandit Lila Ram, Chander Singh etc., and received compensation with respect to the land mentioned in the sale deeds by those persons. There was no objection by Pandit Lila Ram at any point of time. It is further stated that, when the land in village Ladha Sarai was acquired, plaintiffs raised objections of benami. The matters were referred u/sec.3031 of Land Acquisition Act and the same was decided, against the plaintiffs by the court of Sh. N. C. Kochar and Sh. H. K. S. Malik and denied that plea of banemi transactions. It is stated that due to this reason, the present suit is not maintainable since the issue of alleged benami of ownership of Pandit Lila CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 68/73 69 Ram is already decided by the said court.
On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the suit was before LAC which does not create resjudicata.
46 As far as the plea of the plaintiff is concerned, I think the issue of benami ownership of Pandit Lila Ram visa vis Chander Singh etc. and had already been adjudicated upon by LAC in abovesaid litigations and due to that reason, the findings of the court, about benami ownership of Pandit Lila Ram visavis Chander Singh, operates as constructive resjudicata and thus cannot be reagitated. This issue is decided in these terms.
ISSUE NO. 4 (dated 09.04.1980) Is the suit barred by Order 2 rule 2 CPC?
47 It is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that there was a land measuring 44 bighas 9 biswa in village Chhatarpur. The sale deed was in the name of Chander Singh. Chander Singh entered into a land deal of the land with one Chandi Ram. Dispute arose. Chandi Ram filed a suit for specific performance against Chander Singh. Chander Singh lost the case in the lower court. In appeal, a compromise took place in which some of the lands was given by Chander Singh CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 69/73 70 to Chandi Ram by way of sale deed. Present plaintiffs brought a suit against Chander Singh regarding the said land in the court of Sh. Jaspal Singh, Additional District Judge. The same was dismissed. Plaintiffs failed to incorporate the relief of the entire land in the said suit and due to that reason, they cannot bring this suit for the rest of the land in view of bar of order 2 rule 2 CPC.
On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that no pleading of the said case was filed by defendants, on record, so in terms of law laid down in Gurbux Singh Vs. Bhure Lal, AIR 1964 SC 1810, the plea of order 2 rule 2 CPC was not proved on record as court cannot make comparison between the two pleadings.
48 The submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff are forceful. No such pleadings are brought on record. Due to that reason, there is no sufficient material on record to give expression as to whether or not the suit is barred u/o.2 rule 2 CPC. This issue is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 5 (dated 09.04.1980) Is the suit not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction?
49 It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 70/73 71 has included one prayer of partition and recovery of possession of immovable property. Nowhere it is mentioned as to the date on which plaintiffs were dispossessed. If they are not in possession, then why the proper court fee has not been paid on the market value of the entire land.
50 On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the suit is properly valued as it was first accounts were to be tallied, and if anything due is found against the defendant Chander Singh, thereafter, only the recovery of money or in refusal, the ownership of the land was to vest in the plaintiff and consequent thereto the land was to be divided/partitioned and to be repossessed. It is stated that due to this reason, there was no yard stick to measure the court fee on the date of filing of the suit.
51 As far as the pleadings are concerned, as already discussed above, the suit appears to be for rendition of account and on the date of filing of the suit, the subject matter of the suit was not ascertainable. Hence, no proper ad volurum court fees could be computed or filed. So, as per the facts of the plaint, in toto, it does not appear that the suit is not maintainable for the purposes of valuation or payment of court fee. The issue is decided in these terms.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 71/73 72 ISSUE NO. 5 & 7 (dated 25.09.2004) Issue no. 5 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration declaring the plaintiffs as owners of suit land? OPP.
Issue no. 7 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation in respect of entire acquired land forming part of suit land? OPP.
52 As already discussed, Pandit Lila Ram or subsequently, the plaintiffs are not benami owners and Chander Singh was not to give any rendition of accounts. Hence, plaintiffs cannot be declared as owners of the suit land. Accordingly, being not owners, they are not entitled for any compensation of the acquired land. These issues are decided accordingly.
RELIEF 53 In view of the aforesaid discussion, following reliefs follows:
(i) The suit of the plaintiff with respect to prayer i.e. if the defendant no. 1 pays the amount of Rs.3,57,737/ or such amount as may be found due on settlement of accounts in respect of the investment made by Pt. Lila Ram on account of price paid, charges and expenses incurred and interest occurred in respect of the lands purchased, personally and/or by sale of his share of lands, then a partition be effected of the lands available and the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 be given exclusive possession of their share of the land is dismissed.
CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 72/73 73
(ii) The suit of the plaintiff with respect to prayer i.e. if defendant no. 1 does not opt to pay the amount as stated above, then a declaration be given to that all the lands mentioned in foregoing paras, including the shares of the defendants no. 1 to 4 are owned by them beneficially and that the defendants no. 1 to 4 are their benami to the extent of the shares standing in their names and that the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 are also entitled to receive all compensation money payable in respect of all these lands as owners thereof to the exclusion of these defendants is dismissed.
(iii) The suit of the plaintiff with respect to prayer i.e. the plaintiffs 1 to 6 be declared to be entitled to recover the sum of rs.3,57,737/ from the share of lands of the defendant no. 1 to 4 including compensation payable in respect thereof before partition is effected, is dismissed.
(iv) Parties to bear their own costs.
54 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
55 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Rakesh Pandit) on 30.05.2022 Addl. District Judge09, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi CS No. 13213/16 Hukam Chand Vs. Chander Singh page 73/73