Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Raj Kumar Bhatia vs Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh . on 18 November, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.13471 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.3504 of 2015)
RAJ KUMAR BHATIA Appellant
VERSUS
ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of an order dated 29th November, 2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby Civil Revision no.8078 of 2014 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and an order dated 14th November, 2014 passed by learned District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing a petition under Section 192(1) read with Section 272 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 affirmed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length we see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below for the view taken in the same is legally un-exceptionable. Even so we cannot keep observing that the facts giving rise to the present litigation and connected legal proceedings present a sordid story Signature Not Verified of what prima facie appears to us to be a case of Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh Date: 2016.01.04 16:06:27 IST fabrication of valuable documents used and/or attempted to be Reason: used in judicial proceedings only with a view to somehow 2 grabbing or falsely claiming title to what is doubtless a piece of valuable property bearing No.1149 in Sector 8-C of the City of Chandigarh.
The appellant before us happens to be a practicing advocate from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. He claims to have developed familiarity with late Ms. Meenu Vaid D/o Gurcharan Das Vaid, resident of House NO.1149, Section 8-C, Chandigarh, owner of the disputed property sometime in March 2011. His case is that he was looking for a house on rent when he happened to meet the said Ms. Meenu Vaid. It is his further case that Ms. Meenu Vaid expressed a desire to execute a will in regard to her house in favour of one Jatinder Singh Birgi-respondent no.5 in these proceedings. The appellant's version is that in keeping with the wishes of the deceased Ms. Meenu Vaid, he scribed a will dated 16th March, 2011, which operated on the demise of Ms. Meenu Vaid just a week later on 21st March, 2011.
The appellant claims that in terms of the will prepared by him, on the instructions of the deceased Ms. Vaid, the property in-question has devolved upon Jatinder Singh Birgi. It is also the appellant's case that the house in-question was originally owned by late Mr. Gurucharan Das Vaid, father of Ms. Meenu Vaid who passed away on 7th July, 2004 leaving behind a will dated 22nd May, 1987 executed jointly by Gurucharan Das Vaid and his wife-Smt. Shanta Vaid and duly registered with the 3 Sub-Registrar at Chandigarh. The will bequeathed the entire property owned by the couple including the house in-dispute in favour of their ‘only daughter’ Ms. Meenu Vaid. That is precisely how Ms. Meenu Vaid-deceased had according to the appellant acquired ownership over the said property upon the demise of Mr. Gurucharan Das Vaid, the original owner.
The appellant's further case is that certain unscrupulous elements were trying to grab the property in-question which forced him to file Probate Case NO.275 of 2012 before the District Judge at Chandigarh, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, by an order dated 14th November, 2014 holding that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain a probate case just because he was the scribe of a will allegedly executed by Ms. Meenu Vaid.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Probate Case, the appellant preferred Civil Revision No.8078 of 2014 (O & M) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which too failed and has been dismissed by the High Court in terms of the order impugned in the present appeal. The High Court concurred with the view taken by the District Judge that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain a probate petition in his capacity as draftsman of the alleged will as he was neither a beneficiary nor the administrator/executor of the will, nor even the person with whom the alleged will was deposited by the testator. The High Court also noted the fact that the appellant 4 was not in a position to justify his coming in possession of the property in-question and that the Probate Court had rightly declined to entertain the probate case filed by him. The High Court held that the question of ownership of the property left behind by Ms. Meenu Vaid could only be decided in a civil court in appropriate civil proceedings.
When this appeal came up for preliminary hearing before us on 9th February, 2015, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the keys of the property in-dispute were presently with the appellant although the appellant claimed no legal right or interest in the same for himself. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was ready and willing to handover the keys to the person who may be adjudged to be the lawful owner of the property. It was also submitted that the appellant had no objection to the deposit of the keys with the Secretary General of this Court while the matter was adjourned. We had accordingly directed the deposit of the keys of the property comprising House No.1149, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, with the Secretary General of this Court within one week. Subject to that condition, we issued notice to respondents no.1 and 2 apart from a notice to the standing counsel for the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It is not in dispute that the appellant has pursuant to the direction, mentioned above, deposited the keys of the property in-question with the Secretary General of this Court.
5
When the matter came up again on 27 th February, 2015, we directed Mr. M.S. Doabia, learned counsel appeared for the Union of Territory Administration of Chandigarh, to submit a report whether the property comprising House No.1149, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, was actually lying vacant and whether anyone had any legitimate claim over the same.
On 20th March, 2015, when the matter appeared once again Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Union Territory, Administration of Chandigarh, and submitted that according to the information available with him the house in-question was initially owned by late Shri G.D. Vaid upon whose demise the same had devolved upon his daughter-Smt. Renu Mohan. A copy of Order dated 17 th December, 2012 passed by the Superintendent, Estate Office, U.T., Chandigarh, recognising the transfer of ownership rights in favour of Smt. Renu Mohan, upon the demise of the original owner, was also placed on record. It was further submitted that Ms. Meenu Vaid, another daughter of late Shri G.D. Vaid, had allegedly executed a will in favour of respondent no.5-Jatinder Singh Birgi, said to have been drafted by the appellant herein. In proceedings filed under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C., however, Jatinder Singh Birgi on affidavit stated that he claimed no right, title or interest in the property in-question. It was at this stage that Mr. Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, Advocate, appeared before us to submit that he had purchased the house in-question in terms of 6 a sale deed executed in his favour for a total sum of Rs.4,25,00,000/- (Rupees four crores twenty five lakhs). He submitted that the property was in the possession of his vendor-Renu Mohan pursuant to the proceedings held under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. and that upon the purchase of the property the same has now been transferred in his favour. According to Mr. Chahal, he was in actual physical possession of the said property and the appellant's case that keys of the said property were deposited in this Court were with him, was totally false and baseless. Mr. Chahal made an oral prayer for being added as party-respondent which prayer was allowed, adding him as respondent no.6 to these proceedings. He was given time to file a reply affidavit, if so advised. We had at the same time issued notice to respondent no.3-Mrs. Renu Mohan, the alleged legal heir of late Shri G.D. Vaid returnable within four weeks. We had also directed personal presence of the appellant on the next date of hearing.
On 29th July, 2015, we heard learned counsel for the parties at some length including the appellant who was present in-person. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant being a member of the Bar at Chandigarh had drafted the will executed by Ms. Meenu Vaid, on her instructions, and that the said draft will was prepared by him in his own hand-writing which document was, according to the appellant's version, got typed by him from a typist in the 7 District Court at Chandigarh. The will was then signed by Ms. Meenu Vaid in the presence of one Colonel Subhash Chander Kohat resident of House No.1220, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. After the signature of the testator, the will, according to the submission made on behalf of the appellant and the appellant himself, continued to be in the possession of the appellant till he started getting threatening calls from M/s N.S. Chakal and Surinder Singh and Shiv Sharma, an Advocate practicing in the District Court, Chandigarh. It was further argued on behalf of the appellant that because of the threats so received by the appellant, he had handed over the original will to Col. Kohat for safe custody. It was urged that the original document was in the possession and control of Col. Kohat and could be produced by him.
Since the version given at the Bar was not on record in the form of an affidavit although a somewhat similar narration of facts was available in the synopsis and the list of dates accompanying the special leave petition, we directed the appellant to file an affidavit, setting out the true facts relating to the alleged execution of the will by Ms. Meenu Vaid and its deposit with Col. Kohat on account of the alleged threats extended to the appellant. The appellant also undertook to produce the original draft of the will prepared by him, allegedly on the instructions of Ms. Meenu Vaid, in his own hand-writing. In the meantime, we directed that notice 8 shall issue to Col. Subhash Chander Kohat to appear in-person in this Court and to produce the original will, if any executed by Ms. Meenu Vaid, allegedly lying in his possession for the present. Notice was also issued to respondent No.5-Jatinder Singh Birgi to appear in this court and to respond to the averments made in the special leave petition.
On 27th August, 2015, we took on record an affidavit filed by the appellant, pursuant to our Order dated 29th July, 2015, to the effect that he had drafted the will on behalf of Ms. Meenu Vaid on her instructions in his own hand-writing. The appellant also produced the original hand-written draft will prepared by him which was taken on record and directed to be kept in a sealed cover. Respondent no.5-Jatinder Singh Birgi also entered appearance through his counsel and sought time to file an application clarifying his position as regards the controversy relating to the will allegedly executed in his favour and also explain why he does not claim the property on the basis of the same. During the course of hearing on 27 th August, 2015, our attention was drawn to certain documents that suggested that Mrs. Renu Mohan, the vendor of respondent no.6-Mr. Chahal was the daughter of Mr. Ram Sarover Dutta and his wife Mrs. Santosh Dutta and not late Mr. G.D. Vaid as claimed by her. This conflict and contradiction was sought to be explained by learned counsel appearing for Mrs. Renu Mohan by submitting that while the official records at all levels 9 suggest that she is the daughter of Mr. Ram Sarover Dutta and Mrs. Santosh Dutta, she was actually the biological daughter of late Mr. G.D. Vaid and his wife-Mrs. Shanta Vaid. In support of that submission reliance was placed on an affidavit filed by Mrs. Renu Mohan. In order to resolve the controversy so arising for consideration, we directed Mrs. Renu Mohan to place on record all such documents as indicated her parentage in school, college and university including the ration card, Election I-Card and Aadhar Card, if any, issued to her. We also gave her an opportunity to place on record documents considered relevant in her possession or control in connection with her parentage. Since notice issued to Col. Kohat for producing the original will had been returned unserved the appellant was directed to take dasti summons for service upon him. At the same time notice was issued to Mr. Inderjeet Vaid and Ms. Sneh Lata Vaid, Class-II heirs left behind by deceased Ms. Meenu Vaid.
The matter then appeared before us on 1st October, 2015, when we gave time to respondent no.5-Jatinder Singh Birgi to file an additional affidavit in terms of our previous order. We also heard Col. Kohat who was present in-person and who submitted that he was not known to the deceased Ms. Meenu Vaid and that the appellant-Raj Kumar Bhatia had once called him to the former’s house to witness the execution of a will. The appellant-Raj Kumar Bhatia had first signed the will as a 10 witness. He too had signed the same as an attesting witness. The will, according to Col. Kohat was never handed over to him for safe custody as alleged by the appellant-Raj Kumar Bhatia. It was submitted that after he signed the will he left the place and does not know whether the original will was kept by the appellant himself or left with Ms. Meenu Vaid, the executant. He submitted that he was not known to the appellant-Raj Kumar Bhatia and he had met him only once while he was looking for a house on rent at Chandigarh. He sought two weeks' time to file an affidavit, stating the true facts relating to the controversy which time was granted to him.
As regards additional/further documents showing the parentage of Mrs. Renu Mohan, the vendor of respondent no.6-Chahal, learned counsel appearing on her behalf had drawn our attention to an affidavit dated 28th September, 2015 which according to her made the position clear. It was also submitted that whatever documents relating to her parentage were available with her, the same had already been filed by her including her passport and that Ms. Renu Mohan did not have any further documents in her possession or control in relation to her parentage whether from the school, college or the university.
The matter then appeared on 15th October, 2015 before us when Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate, entered appearance on behalf of Sneh Lata Vaid, one of the Class-II heirs left behind 11 by the deceased Ms. Meenu Vaid while Mr. Inderjeet Vaid, the other Class-II heir remained unrepresented. It was in the course of hearing on 15th October, 2015 that respondent no.6-Chahal placed before us an agreement/assignment of rights allegedly executed between Mrs. Renu Mohan on the one hand and Mr. Ved Pal and Mr. Balbir Singh on the other in relation to House No.1149, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, An agreement dated 15th June, 2011 purporting to have been signed not only by Mrs. Renu Mohan but also the other two executants, mentioned above was also filed. It was submitted by Mr. Chahal that Ved Pal and Balbir Singh, the two executants to the above agreement had paid to Mrs. Renu Mohan, the vendor, a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000 (Rupees two crores), out of which Rs.1.70 crores was paid in cash while the rest was paid in terms of four demand drafts, mentioned in the said agreement. A copy of the document was furnished to the appellant and counsel appearing for respondent no.5-Jatinder Singh Birghi in the court. While another copy was furnished to counsel appearing for Mrs. Renu Mohan with a direction to the parties to file an affidavit stating
(a) whether any such agreement/deed of assignment of rights, as referred to above, was ever executed between her on the one hand and Mr. Ved Pal and Balbir Singh on the other and (b) Whether Mrs. Renu Mohan had received the amount mentioned in the said document including an amount of Rs.1.70 crores said to 12 have been paid in cash.
Mr. Chahal also placed on record the original will dated 20th May, 1987 executed by Mr. G.D. Vaid and his wife-Mrs. Shanta Vaid in favour of Ms. Meenu Vaid whom they described as their only daughter. According to Mr. Chahal original document was handed over to him by Mrs. Renu Mohan, his vendor, who in turn had came in possession of the same through her husband with whom the executant had left the will for safe custody. The original will was taken on record and directed to be kept in a sealed cover along with Agreement/Deed of assignment of rights, referred to earlier, while permitting Mr. Chahal to take photocopies of the original will and other documents.
Mr. Chahal also placed on record a bank statement of his HUF Account and that Mrs. Renu Mohan, and a statement showing payments which he had made to the seller, Mrs. Renu Mohan and Balbir Singh and Mr. Ved Pal in consideration of the House that he has purchased from Mrs. Renu Mohan. Mr. Chahal also filed additional documents which were taken on record and directed to be made in a sealed cover.
In the course of hearing on 15th October, 2015, we also took on record copies of agreement dated 16th March, 2011 allegedly executed between Ms. Meenu Vaid and Mr. Jatinder Singh Birgi, the original whereof, according to the appellant, were in possession of respondent-Jatinder Singh Birgi. A copy of a civil suit titled Jatinder Singh Birgi v. Ratan Lal 13 relating to the disputed property was also placed on record along with a copy of the agreement to sell dated 27 th April, 2011 allegedly executed between Jatinder Singh Birgi and Ratan Lal. A copy of the alleged deeds/agreement executed on 13 th March, 2011 between Ms. Meenu Vaid and Mr. Jatinder Singh Birgi creating a tenancy in respect of the house in-question on payment of a monthly rental of Rs.7,000/- was also placed on record by the appellant. The original of that document was, according to the appellant, in the possession of respondent no.5-Jatinder Singh Birgi. The appellant was directed to file an additional affidavit explaining his position whether the said documents were genuine and had been executed by him.
An affidavit has been received by post from Col. Kohat s/o Mr. Bharat Singh resident of House No.1120, Section 34-C, Chandigarh, now residing at House No.444/1, Sector 4-A, Chandigarh, inter alia stating that on or about March 11, 2011, he met the appellant-Raj Kumar Bhati in the market of Sector 8, Chandigarh, while he was searching a suitable accommodation. During the said meeting, the appellant requested to accompany him to the house of one of his acquaintances to witness the execution of a will. He introduced a lady aged 50-55 years and showed a will that purported to have been made and signed by the said lady. Since the appellant had already signed in front of him as an attesting witness, he had no reason to doubt its genuineness and therefore signed as a second attesting witness. 14 After doing so, Col. Kohat left the place as he had to see some other properties. Col. Kohat stated that the said will was never handed over to him and he has no knowledge about the whereabout of the said will.
An additional affidavit dated 17th November, 2015 has also been filed by respondent no.5-Jatinder Singh Birgi settling out the circumstances in which the agreement to sell referred to in the earlier order passed by us as also the rent note and the suit based on the same were filed and were pending in different court. In particular, the affidavit states that an agreement to sell dated 16th March, 2011 was entered into between Ms. Meenu Vaid and Jatinder Singh Birgi. In terms of the said agreement, the purchaser-Jatinder Singh Birgi had paid to Ms. Meenu Vaid a sum of Rs.60 lakhs as the earnest money on 16 th March, 2011 which incidentally happens to be the date when the will was executed. Within five or six days, however, seller/testator is said to have breathed her last on 21st March, 2011. We asked Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5-Jatinder Singh Birgi, whether he had instituted any proceedings for recovery of the amount, Rs.60 lakhs, paid by him pursuant to the alleged agreement to sell. His answer was in the negative. More importantly, no explanation was forthcoming for his failure to make any move for the recovery of such a huge amount allegedly paid by him towards consideration for the property in-question. It is also 15 not in dispute that pursuant to the rent agreement, allegedly executed between Ms. Meenu Vaid and Jatinder Singh Birgi, he did not occupy the property in-question, although a sum of Rs.7,000/- was deposited by Jatinder Singh Birgi in the saving bank account no.251101004394 in the Canara Bank at Chandigarh on 4th March, 2011.
It is interesting to note that in para '5' of the affidavit filed by Jatinder Singh Birgi, it is inter alia stated that the appellant-Raj Kumr Bhatia had received a sum of Rs.15 lakhs from him, i.e. Rs.10 lakhs vide cheque no.499 dated 7th May, 2011 drawn on IDBI Bank, Sector 8, Chandigarh, in the name of his wife and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in cash. This payment, according to the affidavit filed by Jatinder Singh Birgi, was in relation to the transaction which the appellant had negotiated between Jatinder Singh Birgi and Ratan Lal in connection with the same property. The appellant-Raj Kumar Bhatia submits that the payment in-question had nothing to do with the disputed property and the said payment was, according to him, made in connection with some other transaction involving a shop-cum-flat in Zirakpur as the same was purchased by the appellant's wife.
We have set out the facts in some detail only to identify the contours of the controversy which needs to be suitably examined at an appropriate level and the truth relating to the same discovered. The following among other aspects need to be 16 investigated:
(1) Was any will like the one alleged by the appellant executed by late Ms. Meenu Vaid? If so, where is the original document so executed?
(2) If no will was actually executed by Ms. Meenu Vaid, as alleged by the appellant, was there any attempt either on the part of the appellant or respondent no.5-Jatinder Singh Birgi in whose favour the will is alleged to have been executed in the presence of Col. Kohat or any other person acting independently or in unison intended to create false evidence or fabricate a valuable document for use to falsely claim title over the valuable property in-question or to use the same in legal/judicial proceedings. If so, who are the people behind such an attempt or attempts and what offences have they in the process committed.
(3) Was Ms. Meenu Vaid the only legal heir left behind by Mr. G.D. Vaid and Mrs. Santha Vaid, if so on whom has the property, upon demise of Ms. Meenu Vaid, lawfully devolved? In particular, whether Mrs. Renu Mohan has nothing to do with Mr. G.D. Vaid or their daughter Ms. Meenu Vaid and whether her claim of being her daughter of Mr. G.D. Vaid supported by any evidence?
(4) What is the actual sale consideration that is alleged to have been paid to Ms. Renu Mohan by her vendee? In particular, were the payments alleged to have been made actually received 17 by the seller, if so, in what form and at what stages? (5) Has there been any attempt by anyone of the parties to these proceedings or any other person to create false documents and/or valuable securities in relation to the disputed property. If so, what are those false documents and who has fabricated the same.
(6) Any other aspect considered relevant pertaining to the property in-question, that tantamount to commission of any offence whether of forgery, perjury or otherwise.
The above aspects, in our opinion, need proper investigation which is not feasible except by a specialised agency who can look into the matter with due care and caution. Having regard to the fact that some of the people who appear to have been associated with the transactions under scrutiny are none other than senior members of the Bar at Chandigarh apart from property dealers including certain officers associated with the registration of the documents being verified, we are of the view that it is a fit case in which the investigation must be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. We accordingly direct that the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, shall assign the matter to a senior officer at Chandigarh for a comprehensive preliminary enquiry and in case the preliminary enquiry reveals commission of an offences for registration of a proper case and investigation into the same. We direct that the needful shall be done expeditiously and as 18 far as possible within a period of six months from the date Director, C.B.I., receives a copy of this Order. Copy of the paper book, documents and affidavits including orders passed by this Court shall be furnished by the Registry to the C.B.I. We make it clear that while we have directed an investigation we really see no reason to prevent the Class-II heirs who claim title to the property on the basis of natural succession to the property in terms of the law applicable to the parties to claim such relief relating to the property in-question in appropriate civil action before a competent court in accordance with law. The pendency of the investigation with the C.B.I. shall not prevent the court before whom such a suit is filed to proceed with the matter and adjudicate upon the issues that may arise before it.
With the above direction, this appeal is disposed off. No costs.
.......................J (T.S. THAKUR) .......................J (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI DATED 18th November, 2015.
19
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.2 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3504/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/11/2014 in CR No. 8078/2014 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) RAJ KUMAR BHATIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS ESTATE OFFICER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 18/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gautam Godara,Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Shubham Bhalla,Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Khatri,Adv.
Ms. Jyotika Kalra,Adv.
Mr. R.B.S. Chahal,Adv.
Ms. Anuwesha Deb,Adv.
Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar,Adv.
Ms. Anumpa Kaul,Adv.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, this appeal is disposed off. No Costs.
(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)