Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Further objection was taken that in view of Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, the suit is barred.

4. On merits, the defendant no.1 has not denied that plaintiff is the widow of Late Col. Ranjit Kumar Verma or that he has not expired on 14.10.2000 or that father in law of the plaintiff was not the member of CGHS. However it is denied that Sh. Ram Gopal Verma had died intestate on 06.08.1998 but stated that he died on 03.08.1998 after making nomination of the suit property in the name of mother of defendants no.1 and 2 and once the nomination of the suit property has been made in the name of defendant no.1 as per Section 28 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, there was no question of further creation of rights of any legal heirs in the said property. Further it is denied that all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Ram Gopal Verma were in joint possession of the suit property and stated that the suit property has always remained in possession of defendant no.2 and he used to pay all the dues towards maintenance. It is further stated that plaintiff has never stayed in the suit property. Late Sh. Ram Gopal CS No.13341/16 Bindu Verma Vs. Virender Kumar Verma & Ors. Page No. 5 of 43 Verma had purchased a flat no.877, Sector-37, Noida and the said flat was sold in 1996-97 and from the consideration received against the said flat and income from joint family excluding husband of plaintiff, H.No.187, Vikaskunj, Vikaspuri; H.No.248, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and H.No.195, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi were purchased. Thus it is prayed that plaintiff is not entitled to partition of the suit property.

5. The defendant no.1 has taken additional pleas for counter claim that the defendant also paid Rs.9,000/- to defendant no.3 for making payment towards consideration of house and shop no.195. It is further stated that all the joint family properties i.e. H.No.187, Vikaskunj, Vikaspuri; H.No.248, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and H.No.195, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi are liable to be partitioned by metes and bound.

6. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of defendant no.1 in which he denied the contents of the written statement as incorrect. It is stated that there is no reason for partition of the property bearing no.187, Vikaskunj, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, House No.195, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave and CS No.13341/16 Bindu Verma Vs. Virender Kumar Verma & Ors. Page No. 6 of 43 H.No.248, 3rd Floor, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi as the H.No.187, Vikaskunj, Vikaspuri was purchased by the plaintiff from her own funds in the year 2001 and H.No.195, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave is the self acquired property of the defendant and property no.248, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar has no concerned whatsoever either with the plaintiff or with the defendants.

18. In my view self serving oral testimony is not sufficient to prove that property/ flat no.187, Vikaskunj, H.No.195, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave and H.No.298, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar are joint family property or that same was purchased from the fund provided by his father.

19. DW2 Sanjeev Verma in his testimony has not deposed a single word that above said properties were owned by his late father or were purchased from the income given by his father to plaintiff's husband after selling the NOIDA Flat thus he has not corroborated the testimony of defendant no.1/ DW1/1. DW3 is the witness who has only produced the record pertaining to the flat no.197, Vikaskunj, Vikaspuri, thus his testimony also does not help defendant no1 to prove that the above said properties were owned by Late Sh.Ram Gopal Verma. Thus from the CS No.13341/16 Bindu Verma Vs. Virender Kumar Verma & Ors. Page No. 15 of 43 testimony of DW1/1 nothing has came out which proves that the properties bearing flat No.187, Vikas Kunj, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, H.No.195, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and H.No.248, 3rd Floor, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi belong to the father of the defendant no.1 or were purchased from the joint family income or from the sale of flat at Noida.

20. Hence, in view of above discussion I do not find self serving statement of DW1/1/ defendant no.1 reliable to believe that property no.187, Vikaskunj, H.No.195, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave and H.No.248, 3rd Floor, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar were purchased from joint family income. Therefore I held that defendants have failed to prove that the suit properties were joint family properties and need to be partition along with suit property.

21. On the other hand, plaintiff in para 2 of the preliminary objection of replication to the WS of defendant no.1 has stated that property no.187, Vikaskunj, Vikaspuri, New Delhi was purchased by the plaintiff from her own fund in the year 2001 and property no.195, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave is the self acquired property of the defendant and property no.248, Ashok Nagar, Tilak CS No.13341/16 Bindu Verma Vs. Virender Kumar Verma & Ors. Page No. 16 of 43 Nagar has no concerned whatsoever either with the plaintiff or with the defendants. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that Flat no.187, Vikaskunj, Vikaspuri is joint family property. She has stated that said flat is purchased by her after death of her husband. Her husband died on 14.10.2000 and same is her self acquired property and she can produce the documents if required with respect to the said flat. She has denied the suggestion that the said flat was purchased after selling the flat no.977, Sector-37A, Arjun Vihar, Noida. She has stated that her father-in-law used to take rent of flat no.977, Sector-37A, Arjun Vihar, Noida. She denied the suggestion that her late husband used to collect the rent of the said property which he used to deposit in the Dena Bank. She has also denied the suggestion that her father in law after selling the property no.997, Sector 37A, Noida has given the share to her and stated that her father in law after selling the said property had given the money to Sh.Virender Verma. She denied the suggestion that she has got any share in the property no.997, Sector 37A, Arjun Vihar, Noida. She has also denied the suggestion that she has pressurized her father in law to transfer the sale proceed of property no.997, Sector 37A, Arjun CS No.13341/16 Bindu Verma Vs. Virender Kumar Verma & Ors. Page No. 17 of 43 Vihar Noida in the account of her husband. She denied the suggestion that the share of sale proceed of property no.997 was not given to any legal heirs. Thus from the aforesaid cross- examination of the plaintiff, nothing has came out in favour of the defendants to prove that the property no.997 were owned by Sh.Ram Gopal Verma or that any money was given to plaintiff after selling flat no.997, Sector 37A, Noida from which properties bearing flat No.187, Vikas Kunj, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, H.No.195, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and H.No.248, 3 rd Floor, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi were purchased.