Delhi District Court
Shri Ganga Bishan S/O Late Sh. Man Singh ... vs State on 1 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-12
CENTRAL DISTRICT:DELHI
PC-63/13/99
In the Matter of:
Shri Ganga Bishan s/o late Sh. Man Singh Mann,
r/o 4/2286, Bihari Colony, Gali no. 4, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032
.................. Petitioner
VERSUS
State
................ Respondent
Objectors:-
1) Sh. Major Singh
s/o Lt. M r. Chahan Singh
r/o 32/3-B Kanti Nagar, Delhi-51
2) Sh. Girdhari Lal
s/o Lt. Sh. Ganpat Ram
r/o 4/2952, Shalimar Park, Shahdara, Delhi-32.
......Respondents
Date of Institution: 26.2.99
Date of Assignment to this court: 1.7.13
Date of Arguments: 1.2.14
Date of Decision: 1.2.14
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall conscientiously decide the present petition u/s PC-63/13/99 Page:-1/19 372 of Indian Succession Act for grant of letter of administration in respect of the estate of deceased Sh. Man Singh Mann son of late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that Sh. Man Singh Mann son of Sh. Kanhiya Lal was absolute/recorded owner of property bearing no. 4/2286(new) Old no. 181/7-A/1, area measuring 217 sq. yds. situated in gali no. 3,4 Bihari Colony in the revenue estate of village Chandrawali, Illaga Shahdara, Delhi-32 in terms of the deed duly registered in the name of Sh. Man Singh Mann in the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi. As stated Sh. Man Singh Mann was father of petitioner and he expired on 8.7.98 leaving behind the petitioner as his only legal heir since his wife and mother of petitioner was predeceased to Sh. Man Singh Mann. As stated deceased Sh. Man Singh Mann expired intestate without leaving any Will, testament, codicil regarding his estate during his life time and there is no other legal heir of the deceased Sh. Man Singh Mann except the petitioner and no one else has any lien, right, title or interest in the said property. It was accordingly prayed that letter of administration be granted to the petitioner in respect of estate/ property in question of the deceased Sh. Man Singh Mann.
2. After the petition was filed notice of the same was issued to the Collector PC-63/13/99 Page:-2/19 of State to file valuation report, however the same was not filed. Notice was also issued to respondents/near relatives of the deceased and besides that citation to the general public was issued by way of publication in the daily newspaper " Statesman" as well as by affixation in the court notice board.
3. The publication of the citation was effected in the newspaper " Statesman".
4. Objections to the present petition were filed on behalf of one Kailash Chand Gupta son of late Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta wherein it was stated that father of petitioner late Sh. Man Singh Maan during his life time had sold the house in question to Sh. Dhan Pal son of Sh. Duli Chand in terms of transfer/title documents dated 30.6.98 and said Sh. Dhan Pal had further on the basis of said title documents executed a sale deed for the property in question in favour of the objector Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta, therefore Sh. Man Singh did not remain the owner of the property in question and accordingly the same could not be inherited by the petitioner. Besides that it was submitted that petitioner and his father had strained relations and even Sh. Man Singh Maan disowned the petitioner from his movable and immovable properties vide publication dated 18.2.95 in Daily Dainik Jagran. Even Sh. Man Singh Maan filed criminal police complaints against the PC-63/13/99 Page:-3/19 petitioner and his wife. It was also stated that since after the death of his father, petitioner without being owner of the property in question was out to sell the same, hence the objector also filed a suit for permanent injunction against him wherein the Hon'ble Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo vide order dated 7.9.99. It was stated that numerous litigations are going on between the petitioner and the objector but with a view to deprive the objector from his legitimate rights as owner the petitioner has suppressed the material facts which were very much in the knowledge of the petitioner. Rest of the contents of the petition were denied and it was prayed that the petition of the petitioner be dismissed.
5. Reply to the said objections were filed by the petitioner in which contents of the petition were denied and those of the objections were reiterated.
6. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 22.1.03:-
1) Whether deceased Maan Singh had sold, transferred and parted with possession of property, subject matter of letters of administration, in favour of Sh. Dhan Pal s/o Sh. Duli Chand and said Sh. Dhan Pal, on the basis of documents executed in his favour, had made a sale deed in favour of the objector? If so, its effects?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of letter of administration PC-63/13/99 Page:-4/19 as claimed by him in the petition?
7. In support of his case petitioner examined himself as PW-1, Sh. Om Prakash as PW-2, Sh. Ram Singh as PW-3, Sh. Jai Dhare Singh as PW-4, Sh. Mrityuanjan Kumar as PW-5, Sh. Randhir Singh as PW-6 and Sh. Sushil Kumar as PW-7 and PE was closed on 4.1.07.
8. Petitioner reiterated his case as narrated in the petition and relied upon sale deed dated 16.8.1970 Ex. PW-1/1, death certificate of Smt. Dhapo Devi deceased mother of petitioner was Ex. PW-1/2, death certificate of Sh. Man Singh Ex. PW-1/3, complaints made to police stations Ex. PW-1/4. Additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner which was allowed vide order dated 16.9.06 whereby petitioner further relied upon record of enumeration Ex. PW-1/A, electoral cards Ex. PW-1/B-1 to Ex. PW-1/B-5, four admission tickets issued by University of Delhi in his name and same were Ex. PW-1/C-1 to PW-1/C-4, application to admission in B.Com(P) alongwith envelops in name of petitioner Ex. PW-1/D-1 to PW-1/D-4, two post cards one in the name of father of petitioner and one in his name was Ex. PW-1/E-1 and PW-1/E-2, receipts of cremation of father and mother of petitioner were Ex. PW-1/F-1 to PW-1/F-7, bills of electricity connection were Ex. PW-1/G-1 to Ex. PW-1/G-50, house tax receipts were Ex.
PC-63/13/99 Page:-5/19 PW-1/H-1 to Ex. PW-1/H-24, water bills were Ex. PW-1/I-1 to Ex. PW-1/I-28, receipt for sewerage charges Ex. PW-1/J-1 to Ex. PW-1/J-6, identity card Ex. PW-1/K, election card Ex. PW-1/L, ration card Ex. PW-1/M, transfer/mutation applied to MCD on 5.1.99 Ex. PW-1/N, identity bond Ex. PW-1/O, reply of both complaints signed by ASI, AD card and UPC were Ex. PW-1/P-1 to Ex. PW-1/P-6. PW-2 Sh. Om Prakash was neighbour of Sh. Man Singh whereas PW-3 Ram Singh and PW-4 Sh. Jai Dhare Singh were relatives of petitioner and they all supported the case of petitioner and reiterated the same. PW-5 Sh. Mrityuanjan Kumar from Sub Registrar Office brought the registered sale deed in respect to property bearing no. IV/2286, situated in Gali no. 3-4, Behari Colony in the revenue estate of village Chandrawali, Shahdara and the same was Ex. PW-5/A. PW-6 Sh. Randhir Singh official from G.B. Panth Hospital deposed that OPD record were not available and letter sent by Additional Medical Superintendent in this regard was Ex. PW-6/A. He also identified Ex. PW-6/B and Ex. PW-6/J to be the documents of G.B. Panth Hospital. PW-7 Sushil Kumar from GTB hospital proved the casualty card of Sh. Man Singh at GTB hospital and entry of the said card was Ex. PW-7/A and copy of casualty register was Ex. PW-7/B. PC-63/13/99 Page:-6/19
9. During the proceeding the objector Kailash Chand expired and since names and addresses of LRs of deceased could not be located by the petitioner, hence the case was adjourned sine-die vide order dated 8.7.08.
10. Thereafter an application u/o 22 Rule 10 CPC and application u/s 5 of Limitation Act was moved on behalf of Sh. Major Singh s/o Lt. M r. Chahan Singh and Sh. Girdhari Lal s/o Lt. Sh. Ganpat Ram for their impleadment as objectors being subsequent purchasers of the property in question which application was allowed vide order dated 29.7.13 and both of them were impleaded as objectors to the present petition and proceedings were revived. It was submitted by both the objectors that objector Kailash Chand Gupta had sold the property in question to the present objectors vide sale deed dated 19.4.99 and he had undertaken and assured the present objection that he would defend and continue to pursue the present case on their behalf and when the present objectors did not receive any information from him regarding the status of the case, then the objectors made efforts and came to know that objector Kailash Chand Gupta expired and thereafter they moved the said application before the court.
11. Thereafter present objectors led their evidence and examined objector no.
PC-63/13/99 Page:-7/19 2 as RW-2, Sh. Sunil Kumar as RW-3, Sh. Parveen Kumar as RW-4, Sh. Dinesh Chandra as RW-5 and Sh. Shyam Kumar as RW-6. Objector no. 2/RW-2 relied upon special power of attorney of Sh. Major Singh Ex. RW-2/1 and publication in newspaper Dainik Vandematram dated 18.2.95 which was marked -X. RW-3 Sh. Sunil Kumar from the office of Sub Registrar brought the registered sale deed dated 11.12.98 Ex. RW-3/1, another sale deed executed by Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta in favour of Major Singh and Sh. Girdhari Lal dated 19.4.99 Ex. RW-3/2. RW-4 Sh. Parveen Kumar stated himself to be the attesting witness to the sale deed whereby Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta had sold the property in question to Sh. Major Singh and Sh. Girdhari Lal. RW-5 Sh. Dinesh Chandra deposed that he had attested a General Power of attorney, agreement to sell, receipt of payment, Will executed by Sh. Maan Singh Man in favour of Sh. Dhan Pal in respect of property in question and said documents were Ex. RW-5/1 to RW-5/4. RW-6 Sh. Shyam Kumar stated himself to the attesting witness of sale deed executed by Sh. Dhan Pal registered on 11.12.98 which was Ex. RW-2/1.
12. I have gone through the entire records including the pleadings, documents and the testimony of witnesses examined on record and have heard the PC-63/13/99 Page:-8/19 arguments addressed by counsel.
13. Issue no. 1&2 :- In the present case, petitioner has has claimed letter of administration in respect of property bearing no. 4/2286(new) old no. 181/7- A/1, area measuring 217 sq. yds. situated in gali no.3,4 Bihari Colony in the revenue estate of village Chandrawali, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-32 which was owned by his father Sh. Man Singh Mann and after his death the said property as alleged devolved upon the petitioner being the only legal heir of Sh. Man Singh Mann. On the other it is the case of the objectors that they are purchasers of the property in question which was sold to them by Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta to whom the said property was sold by Sh. Dhanpal whereas the said property was sold to Sh. Dhanpal by Sh. Man Singh Mann, father of petitioner. Objectors have placed on record chain of sale deeds and title documents in support of their claim over the property in question and first of I would deal with the said documents to see whether the objectors have been successful in discharging their onus to claim the property in question. It is not disputed that property in question was owned by Sh. Man Singh Mann, father of the petitioner and the only question which is to be decided is whether he had sold the property or not during his lifetime and if it is so, then the petitioner cannot get anything. It is the PC-63/13/99 Page:-9/19 case of the objectors that Sh. Man Singh Mann had sold the property in question to Sh. Dhanpal vide title documents dated 30.6.98 which included notorized agreement to sell, GPA, Will, receipt of payment. The authenticity of these documents are to be looked into and if in case these documents are not found genuine then the whole case of the objectors goes and chain is broken. The said documents were Ex. RW-5/1 to RW-5/4 which included a GPA Ex. RW-5/1, agreement to sell Ex. RW-5/2, receipt Ex. RW-5/3 and Will deed Ex. RW-5/4. All these documents are not registered documents but the same are notarised by Notary Public Sh. Dinesh Chandra who appeared as RW-5. RW-5 in his testimony had stated that the said documents were attested by him and were executed in his presence as Sh. Mann Singh Mann and attesting witnesses signed the same in his presence, however during cross examination it was admitted by him that the entry in his register with respect to attestation of above documents was not made. He voluntarily stated the parties stated that they simply wanted to get the said documents executed and attested as per their mutual understanding and they were not interested in the entry of the same in his register. He even did not have the knowledge about the requirement of making entry. The abovesaid clearly reflects upon the PC-63/13/99 Page:-10/19 working style of the said Notary Public and it is clear that he has been attesting the documents at the whims and wishes of the parties, even without entering the same in his register which is a mandatory requirement as per law. Further, during cross examination he admitted he is not a summoned witness but he at the sametime he did not know as to who contacted him for appearing as witness before the court though he was contacted for deposing before this court on or about 2 ½ months back. Similarly at one place he stated that the affidavit of his evidence was prepared by the Cl. for objectors but on another he stated that he did not know have the phone number of Cl. for objector and even he did not know his name. He even stated that Cl. for objector had not called me for deposing in the present matter. If RW-5 was not summoned by the court and was contacted by some one then it is obvious that he should have known the said person on whose asking he appeared to depose before the court whereas the abovesaid contradictory stand taken by RW-5 clearly shows that he deliberately tried to conceal the name of that person who contacted him for deposing before this court. When he is appearing from the side of objectors and even his affidavit was prepared by Cl. for objectors then it is unlikely that he did not know the objectors or even the PC-63/13/99 Page:-11/19 name of their Cl.. Further RW-6 Sh. Shyam Kumar who stood attesting witness to sale deed dated 11.12.98 Ex. RW-3/1 whereby property in question was sold by Dhanpal to Kailash Chand Gupta deposed during cross examination that he had been called by Mr. Dinesh Chand Gautam, Advocate to depose in the present matter who had come to the court on the said date to give evidence meaning thereby RW-5 called him to depose in the present matter since on 5.12.13 RW-5 was cross examined. The said statement of RW-6 clearly shows the consensus between him, RW-5 and objectors which RW-5 wanted to conceal. Hence, it is quite obvious that the person who had contacted RW-5 to appear as witness must be from the side of objectors since he was their witness and attempt of RW-5 to hide his contact with the objectors certain create doubt on the genuineness of this witness and his testimony in view of above circumstances is not at all trust worthy.
14.Further, if Sh. Man Singh Mann was selling the property in question to Dhanpal and executed the agreement to sell, GPA and receipt for payment then what was the need for executing a Will Ex. RW-5/4. It is also worth mentioning that all these documents Ex. RW-5/1 to RW-5/4 were dated 30.6.98 and though agreement to sell, GPA and receipt on the one hand PC-63/13/99 Page:-12/19 reflects that the property in question was sold to Sh. Dhanpal but on the other hand in the Will it was mentioned that testator bequeath that after his death the said property shall go and develop to the said testimony and he will be shown and absolute owner of the said property. When on 30.6.98 Sh. Man Singh Mann had sold the property to Sh. Dhan Pal then why in the Will executed on the same day it was written that the said property will devolve upon Sh. Dhan Pal after the death of Sh. Man Singh Mann. Further it has not come on record whether said Will was ever propounded by Sh. Dhan Pal or not. Even none of the witnesses to the said Will had come to depose before the court and only RW-5 Notary Public had appeared whose testimony as is already observed suffered contradiction and is not trust worthy. It is also a point of consideration that said Will and documents were alleged to be executed on 30.6.98 whereas Sh. Man Singh Mann expired on 8.7.98 i.e within 7 days which also create suspicious circumstances. Moreover, the documents Ex. RW-5/1 to RW-5/4 were signed by Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta and Sh. Nanu Mal in the capacity of attesting witnesses and they had seen the alleged transaction but they have not appeared in witness box and Sh. Dinesh Chandra has only notrised the documents and he cannot be said to be a witness to the PC-63/13/99 Page:-13/19 said transaction. Hence the said documents even otherwise do not stand proved as per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act.
15. Ld. Cl. for the petitioner has argued that objectors are running a racket of usurping the properties by forging the documents. The said contention of Ld. Cl. for petitioner is well founded as pointed out above since though PW-5 Dinesh Chandra denied knowing any objector or anybody personally but he himself was identified by PW-6 as the person who called him to depose in the present matter and with whom he is working. PW-6 Shyam is the person who is shown to be the attesting witness of sale deed dated 11.12.98 Ex. RW-3/1 executed by Dhanpal in favour of Kailash Chand Gupta. Even objector Girdhari Lal RW-2 in cross examination admitted that he met Sh. Dinesh Kumar in the year 1999 lastly and had seen his office in Seelampur whereas Sh. Dinesh had denied knowing any objector. The abovesaid clearly shows that Sh. Dinesh Chadra was known to Girdhari Lal and to Sh. Shyam Kumar which fact has been deliberately tried to be concealed as is already observed. Even Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta earlier objector stood witness to the alleged documents Ex. RW-5/1 to RW-5/4 whereby property in question was allegedly bequeathed by Sh. Man Singh Mann in favour of Dhanpal and subsequently he himself allegedly PC-63/13/99 Page:-14/19 purchased the property in question from Sh. Dhanpal. Even, Sh. Dhanpal who is alleged to be the predecessor in interest of Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta was known to the objector Sh. Girdhari Lal as admitted by him in his cross examination that he went to the house of Mr. Dhan Pal. The contact between the present objectors and their alleged predecessor-in-interest Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta, Dhan Pal and even Notary Public Sh. Dinesh Chandra and Shaym Kumar is clearly established from the record and consensus between them as is already observed cannot be ruled out. It is also the case of the present objectors that Sh. Kailash Chand though sold the property in question to them vide sale deed dated 19.4.99 Ex. RW-3/2 and assured them that he will continue contesting the present case on their behalf but why the fact of selling the property in question to the present objectors was not brought on record by Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta himself which was done during the pendency of the present petition. The above plea of objectors that Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta had assured them that he will contest the case on their behalf also goes to show that the pendency of present petition was in their knowledge and they could have declared their ownership before the court and could have appointed Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta as their attorney to appear in the present matter but PC-63/13/99 Page:-15/19 that was not done so and rather they preferred to keep quite till the death of Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta and above said concealment and conduct of objectors certainly raise shadow of doubt. Further, objector Girdhari Lal has been appearing and contesting the present case on his behalf as well as on behalf of objector Major Singh who is the alleged co-purchaser of the property in question vide SPA executed by Major Singh in favour of Sh. Girdhari Lal Ex. RW-2/1 which is dated 10.8.11, however during cross examination RW-2 deposed that Major Singh had gone to Punjab at present and he could not remember the year, month and date when Mr. Major Singh had gone to Punjab. He even could not recollect as to whether he had met Major Singh in the year 2010 and could not even remember when he met Mr. Major Singh last time. When even objector Girdhari Lal could not remember when he met Sh. Major Singh last time then it is quite sure that he must have not met him for years and if it is so then how come the SPA Ex. RW-2/1 was executed in the year 2011 and accordingly execution of this document is also under shadow of doubt. It is also very strange that Sh. Manor Singh who is stated to be business partner of objector Girdhari Lal is not in his regular touch and it is unlikely for a person to contest a case on behalf of somebody who is not in his contact for years.
PC-63/13/99 Page:-16/19 In view of the above when the very basis of the case of objectors i.e. the documents alleged to be executed by Sh. Man Singh Mann in favour of Sh. DhanPal cannot be given a clean chit and cannot be stated to be valid documents. Accordingly the further chain of documents i.e. sale deeds dated 11.12.98 Ex. RW-3/1 and sale deed dated 19.4.99 Ex. RW-3/2 executed by Sh. Dhanpal and Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta are discarded and it is held that Sh. Man Singh Mann never sold the property in question to Sh. Dhanpal. Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the objectors. As far as claim of petitioner is concerned, petitioner has claimed himself to be only legal heir of Sh. Man Singh Mann. Though objectors have alleged that he had strained relations with his father and also pleaded that petitioner was even disowned by Sh. Man Singh Mann by way of publication in newspaper but no such publication has been brought on record by them whereas on the other hand PW-2 Om Prakash who is also residing in the same locality as that of property in question and is stated to be neighbour Sh. Man Singh Mann and PW-3 PW-4 Sh. Ram Singh, Sh. Jai Dhare who stated themselves to be relatives of Sh. Man Singh Mann have categorically stated that petitioner was not disowned by Sh. Man Singh and denied that petitioner PC-63/13/99 Page:-17/19 did not had healthy relations with his father. Testimony of these witnesses remained duly corrobated and no dent could be created in the same. Petitioner has also contended that he is in possession of the property in question which fact is also corroborated by the above said PWs. Even petitioner has placed on record house tax receipts Ex. PW-1/H-1 to Ex. PW-1/H-24, water bills Ex. PW-1/I-1 to Ex. PW-1/I-28, electricity bills Ex. PW-1/G-1 to Ex.PW-1/G-50, his identity card issued by DDA Ex.PW-1/K, his election card Ex. PW-1/L, ration card Ex. PW-1/M to prove his possession over the property in question whereas there is nothing on record which suggest that objectors are in possession or that petitioner is not in possession. Hence it is duly made out on record that petitioner being son of Sh. Man Singh Mann is his legal heir and has been in possession of the property in question and accordingly the said property of Sh. Man Sigh Mann will devolve upon him as per Hindu Succession Act. Hence issue no. 2 is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the objectors.
16.Relief:- In view of the above finding, instant petition is hereby allowed and letter of administration with respect to property in question be granted to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to administer the estate/property of deceased. It be accordingly granted after completion of required formalities in this context i.e. filing of requisite court fee, administration PC-63/13/99 Page:-18/19 bond alongwith one surety bond of the amount of valuation in accordance with law. . File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on (AJAY GOEL) 1.2.14 ADJ-12(Central)Delhi. PC-63/13/99 Page:-19/19