Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. In cross-examination, DW-1 stated that barring one occasion when he saw late Shri Amolak Ram walking with a helper he would see him walking on foot without any cruches or wheel chair. He stated that he was not aware of any sickness of the deceased. When cross-examined as to who accompanied Amolak Ram for registration of the will, DW-1 stated that Shri Santosh Oberoi and Ms.Sanjogita, son and daughter accompanied Amolak Ram. He further stated that Mr.Amolak Ram's driver drove the car. In cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that he was rendering services for Indian Hotels where Santosh Oberoi was employed. He admitted in cross-examination that Santosh Oberoi took his help while submitting papers to DDA for mutation of the property after death of the deceased. Interestingly, DW-1 went on to contradict himself when further cross-examined as to how he knew Santosh Oberoi when he stated that he knew Santosh Oberoi through one Mr.Kapoor who lives in defense Colony. He further contradicted himself when he stated that he never did any work for any company in which Santosh Oberoi had an interest. He further contradicted himself when he stated that he did not remember whether Santosh Oberoi had accompanied them to the office of the Sub-Registrar. When cross-examined as to what happened in the office of the Sub-Registrar, he stated that he did not remember whether Amolak Ram went up to the office of the Registrar for registration or whether the Registrar came down for purposes of registration. He, however admitted that there was a flight of steps leading to the office of the Sub-Registrar. DW-1 went on to contradict himself pertaining to the identity of the other attesting witness Shri Mehar Chand, when on cross-examination he stated that he was not aware as to in whose employment Shri Mehar Chand was. On being cross-examined as to what procedure was followed for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar, he stated that he was not aware as to what happened. He did not remember whether Amolak Ram went to the table of the Sub-Registrar or whether the Sub-Registrar came down to the car.

42. In cross-examination he admitted having helped defendants 1 to 5 in effecting mutation of the suit property in their names in the record of DDA (Mutation is in name of Santosh Oberoi HUF).

43. Two witnesses from DDA Lease Administration Department were examined. Shri Prahlad Singh appeared as PW.4 and Shri R.S.Punia appeared as DW.3. DW.3 stated that mutation applications and supporting documents were Ex.DW.3/5 and the mutation letter was Ex.DW.1/1.

44. PW.4 deposed that Ex.PW.4/8 was a letter dated 21.9.1984 received under the signatures of Mr.Santosh Oberoi requesting for mutation of property No.E-231, East of Kailash in his name. On coming to know of the application, plaintiff No.2 protested and pointed out that she and her children were also the legal heirs of the deceased. Since Santosh Oberoi had relied upon the will in question, on 14.4.1987 vide PW.4/2, DDA informed Santosh Oberoi that since the will was in dispute, he should obtain a probate before DDA could act under the will. Surprisingly, in spite thereof, DDA mutated the property in the names of defendants 1 to 5, on the basis of an affidavit Ex.DW.4/9 subsequently submitted to DDA by Santosh Oberoi and Ex.DW.4/10 an Indemnity Bond urnished by Santosh Oberoi. Both documents do not disclose that Amolak Ram had another son who had died and plaintiffs were his legal heirs.

52. Issue No.2 is accordingly held in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants 1 to 5. It is held that the will dated 27.12.1983 is not proved.

ISSUE No.3

53. Admittedly, DDA is the Lesser of plot No.E-231, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Admittedly, DDA has effected mutation in favor of Santosh Oberoi HUF, on demise of Amolak Ram. Admittedly, DDA required Will dated 27.12.1983 to be got probated. Admittedly, DDA effected mutation ignoring the Will. Admittedly, DDA was in receipt of objections from plaintiff No.2. Since acts of DDA are under scrutiny, DDA is a necessary party. It may be noted that prayer 'C' in the plaint is for a decree declaring the mutation as illegal. Issue No.3 is held in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

63. Issue No.5 is accordingly decided in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants 1 to 5. It is held that defendant No.2 has not contributed any amount towards construction of the building on the plot.

ISSUE NO.6 :

64. In view of the observations/findings recorded in para 44 and 51 above, conclusion is inevitable. Since mutation was effected in the record of DDA by and under Ex.DW.4/9 and DW.4/10 wherein names of the plaintiffs were not disclosed, mutation effected by DDA in respect of the leasehold rights qua plot No.E-231, East of Kailash, New Delhi is illegal. Mutation is accordingly quashed. DDA is directed to cancel the mutation.