Delhi District Court
Smt. Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (Now Deceased) on 10 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016
Smt. USHA DEVI
W/o Shri PAPPU RAM
R/o XV/90229028 & 9078,
MULTANI DHANDA
PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. PAPPU RAM (NOW DECEASED)
THROUGH LR
i) VANMALA W/o RAVI RANA
R/o XV/90229028 & 9078,
MULTANI DHANDA
PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI
ii) NIRMAL W/o GOPAL SINGH
R/o XV/90229028 & 9078,
MULTANI DHANDA
PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI
iii) PARDEEP S/o PAPPU RAM
R/o 2B/7737/XV FIRST FLOOR
RAM NAGAR, PAHARGANJ
NEW DELHI
iv) DEEPA, W/o DEEPAK
R/o XV/90229028 & 9078,
MULTANI DHANDA
PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 1 of 18 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:46:35
+0530
v) RAKHI D/o PAPPU RAM
R/o XV/90229028 & 9078,
MULTANI DHANDA
PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI
vi) GAURAV, S/o PAPPU RAM
R/o 90389042 WARD No. XV
GALI No. 4, MULTANI DHANDA
RAM NAGAR, PAHARGANJ,
NEW DELHI 110055
2. THE STATE THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
DELHI SECRETARIAT
I.P. ESTATE
NEW DELHI
3. Smt. SONIA MAKAN
W/o SHRI SURINDER KUMAR
R/o D171, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR
NEW DELHI 110060
4. SHRI SURINDER KUMAR
S/o NOT KNOWN
R/o D171, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR
NEW DELHI 110060
5. HOTEL SINGH EMPIRE DX THROUGH
ITS PARTNER SHRI BALJINDER SINGH
R/o 87088710, D.B. GUPTA ROAD
PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI
6. SANJIV KUMAR CHIB
S/o G.S. CHIB
R/o H36, FIRST FLOOR, KRITI NAGAR
NEW DELHI
7. Smt. SATYA RANI
W/o GOVIND RAM, 782,
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 2 of 18 pages
Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH
Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10
15:46:46 +0530
GROUND FLOOR, MUKHARJEE NAGAR,
DELHI
8. M/s GLITZ MEDICARE Pvt. Ltd.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
A COMPANY DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
152, TRANSPORT CENTER,
PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 18.12.2015
First date before this court : 19.08.2019
Arguments concluded on : 27.09.2022
Date of Decision : 10.10.2022
APPEARANCE : Shri Sumesh Gandhi, counsel for applicant
Shri A.K. Kohli, counsel for respondent no. 8
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition brought under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, the petitioner has sought revocation of probate dated 23.03.2005 granted in favour of her husband by the predecessor court. The petition was originally filed by the petitioner against her husband as respondent no. 1 and the State, but respondent no. 1 having passed away, was substituted with his legal representatives respondent no. 1 (ivi). Later, respondents no. 37 and ultimately respondent no. 8 were impleaded being subsequent purchasers on the basis of the impugned Will. The respondents no. 37 participated in the proceedings till recording of petitioner's evidence but thereafter stopped appearing, thus only respondent no. 8 continues to contest. I heard learned counsel for both sides and also examined their written submissions.
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 3 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:46:56 +0530
2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix pleaded in the petition is as follows.
2.1 Petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent no. 1. Shri Babu Ram, father of respondent no. 1 owned and possessed a number of properties out of which he bequeathed property bearing No. XV/90229028 & 9078, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject property") by way of Will dated 09.01.1978 in favour of petitioner and consequently after his death, petitioner became owner thereof.
2.2 But petitioner was not in possession of the said Will dated 09.01.1978 and was assured by respondent no. 1 repeatedly that his father had not executed any Will in her favour, so she was continuing to stay in the subject property at his mercy.
2.3 Some time in the year 200102, respondent no. 1 started living separately and kept shifting his residence from one place to another in order to avoid his responsibilities towards petitioner and their children. After intervention of elders, respondent no. 1 got convinced to join company with the petitioner and their children, and accordingly, some time in the month of May 2015, respondent no. 1 with his bag and baggage joined company with petitioner.
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 4 of 18 pages
Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH
Digitally signed by
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10
15:47:08 +0530
2.4 Thereafter, respondent no. 1 stayed in the subject
property for about six months during which period certain unknown persons including Shri Surinder Kumar (respondent no. 4 herein) started visiting respondent no. 1 and insisting him to sign certain blank papers in return of handsome amount and get the subject property vacated. The said unknown persons also offered two cheques to the total tune of Rs. 13,00,000/ to petitioner, who refused but respondent no. 1 accepted the same. The respondent no. 1 also obtained signatures of petitioner as well as their son Gaurav and daughter Deepa on blank papers.
2.5 On being insisted, respondent no. 1 explained that he had sold the rented portion to Shri Surinder Kumar and since it was ancestral property, No Objection from others was required. The respondent no. 1 also started pressurizing the petitioner to obtain signatures from remaining children but Shri Pradeep and Smt. Vanmala (respondents no. 1 (iii & i) herein) refused to do so.
2.6 On the eve of Dipawali the respondent no. 4 alongwith some strangers came to the subject property and insisted the petitioner and respondent no. 1 to vacate the same by end of the month and to get the cheque encashed. At that time it was revealed that respondent no. 1 had long ago sold the subject property to Smt. Janak Arora and her two associates, who had further sold the same to others. Since petitioner had no other shelter, she refused to vacate.
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 5 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:47:20 +0530 2.7 On the day of Bhai Dooj, respondent no. 1 "lambasted" the petitioner and their children to vacate the subject property, but on being cautioned by their elder son, on the night intervening 13.11.2015 and 14.11.2015, respondent no. 1 left the house and started residing at the address mentioned in the petition. Despite being approached by the petitioner and their elder son, respondent no. 1 refused to join their company and informed that if they did not vacate the subject property, the respondent no. 4 and their associates would eliminate the entire family.
2.8 At that stage, respondent no. 1 (iii) rushed to the office subregistrar to inspect the records, while the petitioner searched the entire bag and baggage of respondent no. 1. The petitioner came across some very old documents in old files including a Will executed by her father in law Shri Babu Ram on 09.01.1978, whereby the subject property had been bequeathed in her favour. The petitioner also came across photocopy of another Will dated 25.10.1977 alongwith copy of probate order dated 23.03.2005 passed by the predecessor of this court.
2.9 On the other hand, respondent no. 1(iii) came across a number of sale deeds of different dates, executed on the strength of probate order dated 23.03.2005.
2.10 Since the Will dated 25.10.1977 bears forged signatures of respondent no. 1 or his henchmen and atleast not of Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 6 of 18 pages Digitally signed Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH KATHPALIA by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:47:30 +0530 late Shri Babu Ram and in any case, due to execution of subsequent Will dated 09.01.1978 it has lost its validity, the probate granted to respondent no. 1 is liable to be revoked as null and void.
3. As reflected from record, even prior to issuance of direction to issue notice of the present petition, respondent no. 1 passed away and was substituted with his legal representatives. But the legal representatives of respondent no. 1 opted not to contest and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 17.11.2016. Thereafter, the subsequent purchasers filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 03.04.2017 and respondents no. 37 were impleaded. Subsequently, another subsequent purchaser filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC which was allowed vide order dated 19.03.2018 and respondent no. 8 was impleaded as a party.
4. Respondents no. 37 filed a joint reply, denying the pleadings of the petitioner and set up their case as follows. Since the petitioner is admittedly not a legal heir of the deceased, she had no interest in the subject property and accordingly the present petition for revocation of probate is not maintainable. It being a case of two Wills propounded by either side, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to seek probate of Will propounded by her and she cannot seek revocation of probate of the earlier Will. The present petition for revocation of probate is hopelessly time barred since the petitioner was very much in the knowledge thereof, Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 7 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:47:42 +0530 that too way back on 28.11.1979 and it is only upon sale of the subject property by respondent no. 1 that her intention became dishonest and she produced photocopy of a false and fabricated Will of her father in law. The petitioner is not in possession of the original Will propounded by her, so the petition is liable to be dismissed. The Will dated 09.01.1978 propounded by petitioner is forged and fabricated document as it does not bear signatures of Shri Babu Ram and was not executed in presence of two witnesses.
5. Respondent no. 8 in its reply denied the contents of the petition and pleaded as follows.
5.1 The petitioner deliberately did not implead respondent no. 8 despite knowing well that it is respondent no. 8 who is the owner in possession. With an evil design to obtain a collusive decree at the back of respondent no. 8, the present petition was filed by petitioner against her husband respondent no. 1, who even failed to contest. The petition is barred by limitation since the petitioner has based her claim on the basis of a Will dated 09.01.1978 while the present petition was filed only in the year 2015. The petitioner has also not placed on record the original Will propounded by her. Since petitioner has not sought probate in respect of Will allegedly executed in her favour, the present petition is not maintainable. The Will propounded by the petitioner is forged and fabricated document.
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 8 of 18 pages
Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH
Digitally signed
by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10
15:47:52 +0530
5.2 The respondent no. 1 became owner of the subject
property by virtue of Letters of Administration granted vide order dated 28.11.1979 in respect of Will dated 25.10.1977 executed by his father. The respondent no. 1 sold the subject property to Smt. Janak Arora, Smt. Uma and Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, who sold away the same to respondent no. 3, 4, 6 & 7 and other persons under seven different sale deeds dated 22.01.2016 and from all of them, the respondent no. 8 purchased the subject property for valuable consideration commensurate to the market price. Thus, respondent no. 1 is the bonafide purchaser of the subject property.
5.3 The amount of Rs. 13,00,000/ paid to petitioner by predecessor of respondent no. 8 was to get the portion in her possession vacated, but despite receiving the money, she did not vacate and rather started demanding more amount and initiated litigation to blackmail the respondents.
6. Petitioner filed separate rejoinders to the replies and reaffirmed the petition contents.
7. On the basis of pleadings, my predecessor framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Letter of Administration dated 23.03.2005 granted in favour of Shri Pappu Ram was obtained by playing fraud upon the court? OPP
2. Relief Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 9 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:48:01 +0530
8. In support of her case, petitioner examined three witnesses while no evidence was adduced on behalf of any of the respondents.
9. The petitioner in her chief examination affidavit as PW1 deposed on oath the contents of her petition and tendered in evidence documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/16. The respondent no. 1(iii) appeared as PW2 and reiterated the petition contents. The third witness of petitioner was one Kamalkant Khandelwal, who identified signatures of his deceased father on Will dated 09.01.1978 executed by Shri Babu Ram.
10. During final arguments, learned counsel for petitioner took me through above mentioned rival pleadings and evidence and contended that the probate dated 23.03.2005 granted to the now deceased respondent no. 1 is liable to be revoked on the ground of fraud. It was argued that nothing substantial could be elicited in cross examination of any of the witnesses of the petitioner and on the other hand, no evidence at all was led by any of the respondents, so the present petition deserve to succeed. Learned counsel for petitioner also argued that there is no evidence to show that the Will Ex. PW1/7 propounded by the petitioner is a forged document. Since the respondent no. 8 did not put respondent no. 37 to notice as regards defect in the title conveyed by them, according to petitioner the respondent no. 8 cannot be treated as a bonafide purchaser.
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 10 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:48:11 +0530
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 8 contended that the present petition has been filed only to blackmail the respondents. It was argued on behalf of respondent no. 8 that the entire version setup by the petitioner is completely unbelievable that after a gap of more than three decades, petitioner would come across a Will in her favour. Learned counsel for respondent no. 8 argued that he was not required to lead any evidence in view of complete lack of worth in the evidence adduced by petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent no. 8 also argued that petitioner failed to present appropriate pleadings and evidence so as to claim benefit under Section 17, Limitation Act.
12. In rebuttal arguments, learned counsel for petitioner argued that on behalf of respondent no. 8 there was no cross examination about the date of knowledge, so Section 17 Limitation Act cannot help respondent no. 8.
13. In nutshell, the case set up by petitioner is that since the Will dated 25.10.1977 of Shri Babu Ram bears forged signatures and since the now deceased respondent no. 1 played fraud on the predecessor court by concealing the subsequent Will dated 09.01.1978 of Shri Babu Ram, the probate granted on 23.03.2005 in favour of respondent no. 1 is liable to be revoked. On the other hand, the case set up by respondent no. 8 is that it is bonafide purchaser and that the present petition is a collusive one, aimed at Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 11 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:48:22 +0530 extorting money insofar as the story of petitioner is completely unbelievable.
14. At this stage, it would be apposite to briefly traverse through the relevant evidence on record.
14.1 In her cross examination as PW1, the petitioner deposed that Shri Babu Ram owned 34 properties and used to reside with her and respondent no. 1; that during his lifetime Shri Babu Ram had consulted her and had shown his intention to bequeath one of his properties to her, but she did not disclose this to her husband respondent no. 1; that her husband had left the home in 2001 but she continued to stay in the subject property and in 2015 he joined back her company; that during the period from 2001 to 2015, she made no efforts to find out as to who the owner of the subject property was; that about existence of the Will propounded by her, she came to know only on having come across the same while searching bag of her husband for the first time in the year 2015; that although even prior to 2015 she was aware about existence of the Will executed in her favour, but she found the Will only in 2015.
14.2 In his chief examination affidavit as PW2, the respondent no. 1(iii) besides reiterating the petition contents also stated that they had obtained a report from handwriting expert, who opined that the Will propounded by petitioner was a genuine Will. In his cross examination, PW2 stated that prior to October 2015, he Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 12 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:48:31 +0530 never had any discussion with the petitioner about the Will dated 09.01.1978; that he also could not recollect having any discussion with the petitioner as regards Shri Babu Ram bequeathing any property in her favour; that his father was in the habit of coming and leaving the family house; that prior to 2015, his father never used to bring his bag and baggage to the subject property.
14.3 In his cross examination, PW3 Shri Kamalkant Khandelwal deposed that he did not know the family of the petitioner and did not know if his father knew the petitioner well; that his father did not talk to him about relations between the petitioner and her husband; that he had never met the petitioner till the day of his testimony; that he did not know whether his father had attended funeral of Shri Babu Ram; that to him, his father never disclosed having attested a Will executed by father in law of the petitioner; that his family never discussed about the manner in which the petitioner used to deal with her father in law.
14.4 It would be significant to notice that originally when chief examination of PW3 was recorded, he had not to be summoned and he appeared on his own with the petitioner. But for cross examination, his summoning was sought by the petitioner which was allowed.
15. My issuewise findings are as follows.
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 13 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:48:41 +0530 ISSUE NO. 1
16. As regards first leg of challenge to the probate that the Will dated 25.10.1977 of Shri Babu Ram bears forged signatures, not even a shred of reliable evidence was adduced by the petitioner. In her chief examination affidavit, the petitioner as PW1 deposed that she had presented the Will dated 25.10.1977 as well as the Will dated 09.01.1978 before the handwriting expert namely Shri Deepak Jain in order to ascertain as to which of the Will was genuine. But for the reasons best known to her, the petitioner opted not to summon the said handwriting expert Shri Deepak Jain in the witness box. Quite interestingly, even the report of Shri Deepak Jain (exhibited as Ex.PW1/11) refers only to the Will dated 09.01.1978, propounded by the petitioner, and does not deal with the Will dated 25.10.1977 on the basis whereof probate was granted. Therefore, it remains not proved that the Will dated 25.10.1977 of Shri Babu Ram was a forged document.
17. The second leg of challenge to the probate order is that the subsequent Will dated 09.01.1978 propounded by the petitioner is a genuine Will of Shri Babu Ram, so the earlier Will dated 25.10.1977, on the basis whereof probate was granted, loses its validity.
18. In view of nature of these proceedings, coupled with inordinate delay on the part of petitioner in approaching this court, I Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 14 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:48:50 +0530 find it extremely difficult to believe that a Will allegedly executed in January, 1978 about which the petitioner admittedly was aware, though not in possession thereof, would get surfaced for the first time only in the end of the year 2015, that too while the petitioner is searching the bag and baggage of her husband respondent no. 1, who had deserted her in the year 2001 and had returned in 2015.
19. In her crossexamination as PW1, the petitioner stated that during his lifetime Shri Babu Ram had consulted her and had told her having bequeathed the subject property in her favour, but she did not disclose that to her husband respondent no. 1. Shri Babu Ram passed away on 25.01.1978. Further, in her cross examination as PW1, the petitioner stated that from the year 2001 to the year 2015, her husband respondent no. 1 remained out of home but she did not try to find out who the owner of the subject property was. These factors also create a strong suspicion on the story set up by petitioner that from January, 1978 till 2001 (when respondent no. 1 left home) she did not try to find out about the Will regarding which during his lifetime Shri Babu Ram had allegedly confided in her and thereafter, from 2001 to 2015, the said Will remained in the bag and baggage of respondent no. 1, waiting only to be discovered by the petitioner while searching the baggage of respondent no. 1 in the end of the year 2015.
20. Going a step deeper, on the contention of the petitioner that in view of Will dated 09.01.1978 of Shri Babu Ram, the Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 15 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:49:00 +0530 previous Will dated 25.10.1977 has lost its validity, I also examined as to whether the petitioner was able to prove execution of Will dated 09.01.1978 in accordance with law.
21. In the case of Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Namdeo Kadam, Appeal (Civil) 1194 of 1995, decided on 17.12.2002 the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows. One of the requirements of due execution of Will is its attestation by two or more witnesses, which is mandatory. On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it appears that a person propounding the Will has to prove that the Will was duly and validly executed and that cannot be done by simply proving that the signatures on the Will were that of the testator; the propounder of Will must also prove that attestations were also made properly as required by Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act. It is true that Section 68 of the Evidence Act does not stipulate that both or all the attesting witnesses must be examined. But atleast one attesting witness has to be called for proving due execution of Will as envisaged in Section 63 of the Succession Act. In other words, if one of the attesting witnesses can prove execution of the Will in terms with Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act, viz. attestation by two attesting witnesses in the manner contemplated therein, the examination of other attesting witness can be dispensed with.
22. In the present case, according to the petitioner, the Will Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 16 of 18 pages Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10 15:49:22 +0530 dated 09.01.1978 of Shri Babu Ram was attested by two witnesses, namely Shri Jagdish Prasad and Shri Hari Shankar Gupta. As regards attestation of the Will dated 09.01.1978, petitioner examined only one witness, namely Shri Kamalkant Khandelwal as PW3, who being son of Shri Jagdish Prasad only identified his signatures as Shri Jagdish Prasad has passed away. Apart from identifying the signatures of Shri Jagdish Prasad on the Will dated 09.01.1978, PW3 did not utter anything as regards attestation of the said Will. That being so, petitioner ought to have examined the other attesting witness Shri Hari Shankar Gupta, but for the reasons best known to petitioner, that was not done. It also does not appear from record that Shri Hari Shankar Gupta is not alive. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove even execution of Will dated 09.01.1978 by Shri Babu Ram.
23. To summarize, the petitioner neither proved that the Will dated 25.10.1977 on the basis whereof probate dated 23.03.2005 was granted by the predecessor court was a forged Will nor proved that subsequently a Will dated 09.01.1978 was executed by Shri Babu Ram, which was discovered by her in the year 2015.
24. In view of above discussion, issue no. 1 is decided against petitioner and it is held not proved that the Letter of Administration dated 23.03.2005 granted in favour of Shri Pappu Ram was obtained by playing fraud upon the court.
Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 17 of 18 pages
Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs GIRISH
Digitally signed
by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2022.10.10
15:49:31 +0530
ISSUE NO. 2 (RELIEF)
25. In view of above findings, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/ to be paid within one week by the petitioner to respondent no. 8 towards its litigation expenses, estimated on conservative side. File be consigned to records.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH Date: KATHPALIA Announced in the open court on 2022.10.10 15:49:44 +0530 this 10th day of October, 2022 (GIRISH KATHPALIA) Principal District & Sessions Judge Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Misc DJ No. 60717/2016 Page 18 of 18 pages
Usha Devi vs Pappu Ram (now deceased) through LRs