Delhi High Court
Suresh Chand Mathur vs Harish Chand Mathur on 9 November, 2010
Author: V.K. Jain
Bench: V.K. Jain
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 28.10.2010
Judgment Pronounced on: 09.11.2010
+ CS(OS) No. 1818/2001
SURESH CHAND MATHUR .....Plaintiff
- versus -
HARISH CHAND MATHUR .....Defendant
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff : Mr Kirti Uppal with Ms Shipra
Mathur, Advs.
For the Defendant : Mr Abijat, Adv.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in Digest?
V.K. JAIN, J
1. This is a suit for declaration. The plaintiffs and
defendants are brothers. Property No. B-4/196, Safdarjung
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 1 of 24
Enclave, New Delhi was owned by late Smt. Shakuntala
Devi Mathur, mother of the parties. She expired on 05 th
November, 1998, leaving a Will dated 17th September, 1981,
which was registered on the same date. The property was
bequeathed by the Testator in the following terms:-
"(1) On the ground floor of the house
situated at B-4/196, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi, I am in occupation of a
drawing room measuring 13'-10½" into
11'-10" and one dining room measuring
13'-10½" into 10'-0", one toilet measuring
8'-C" into 4'-8", one kitchen measuring
8'-C" into 7'-0". The same is bequeathed
to my son Shri Harish Chand Mathur. In
addition to the above one bedroom
measuring 13'-10½" into 11'-10" with
attached toilet measuring 6'-5" into 6'-4½"
presently under the tenancy of one Shri
Sohan Minz is also bequeathed to the
said Shri Harish Chand Mathur. The
entire open space including Canopy,
verandah, etc. on the front side and half
portion of the open space on the back
side to the property is bequeathed to the
said Shri Harish Chand Mathur. The
entire portion thus bequeathed to said
Shri Harish Chand Mathur has been
marked as Red in the appended plain.
(3) The remaining portion of the
ground floor, consisting of one bed,
measuring 13'-10½" into 10'-0" and one
kitchen (Box) measuring 8'-0" into 5'-0",
which is presently part of the tenanted
portion with said Shri Sohan Minz
including half portion of the open space
on the back side of the property is
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 2 of 24
bequeathed to my son Shri Ishwar Chand
Mathur.
(4) That under the municipal laws,
the Ist and second Floor of the house can
be further constructed, which I have not
been able to carry out for want of funds.
My sons Shri Suresh Chand Mathur, Shri
Mahesh Chand Mathur and Shri Naresh
Chand Mathur are settled in life and are
in a position to construct the property for
themselves, and with that view in mind, I
further bequeath:
(a) The portion on the first floor
above the dining and drawing room
including toilets and kitchen, presently
under my possession, to Shri Mahesh
Chand Mathur for the purpose of
constructing thereon suitable property
according to the municipal law.
(b) Similarly, Shri Suresh Chand
Mathur is bequeathed the portion on the
first floor above the two bed rooms
attached bath room and kitchen,
presently under the tenancy of Shri
Sohan Minz for the purpose of
constructing property according to
municipal laws.
(c) Similarly, Shri Naresh Chand
Mathur is bequeathed space on the
second floor for construction of house
according to the municipal laws over all
constructions on first floor. Provided that
in the event the construction on the first
floor is not carried out by the legatees
over their respective portions within 10
years after my death, the portion thus
bequeathed, shall revert to my son Shri
Naresh Chand Mathur, who shall
thereafter have a complete right over the
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 3 of 24
same as full owner. In that event rights
of Naresh Chand regarding second floor
will revert to Shri Harish Chand Mathur.
Provided, further, that in case of Shri
Naresh Chand Mathur who has been
bequeathed the second floor does not
carry out the constructions within ten
years of constructions on first floor or
within ten years of his entitlement to first
floor as aforesaid, his entitlement will
revert back to Shri Harish Chand. Shri
Harish Chand Mathur shall have the
right of extending the aforesaid period of
ten years by consenting in writing to that
effect. In case of pre-death of Shri Harish
Chand, his heirs, will step in his place. It
may be added here that Shri Mahesh
Chand, Shri Suresh Chand Mathur and
Shri Naresh Chand Mathur shall have
complete right of construction over the
space bequeathed to them. They shall,
however, have no right to transfer the
portion, thus bequeathed to them without
first carrying out the constructions
according to the municipal laws. They
shall have free right of access and
passage to the first or the second floor, as
the case may be from the front side of the
house, where the staircase is situated.
They shall have no other right to the
assets and property left by me after
death.
2. It has been alleged in the plaint that late Smt.
Shakuntala Devi Mathur changed her mind in November,
1997, by wring a letter, addressed to her children, on a non-
judicial stamp paper, annexing therewith some pieces of
paper written in her own handwriting and containing her
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 4 of 24
real intention in the matter. In one of the annexures to the
aforesaid letter, she recorded that her house B-4/196 will
go to her five sons and her daughter shall have no rights
therein. This document, according to the plaintiffs,
constituted a deemed codicil to the Will dated 17th
September, 1981. The plaintiffs have sought a declaration
that the restriction, contained in the Will dated 17th
September, 1981 on transfer of the shares of the plaintiffs
in the aforesaid property is void and invalid under Section
138 of Indian Succession Act and that the letter dated 06 th
November, 1996 reflects the real and last intention/desire of
the Testatrix and amounts to a deemed codicil. They have
also sought declaration that the defendants have no specific
share in the property in terms of the Will, read with the
deemed codicil.
3. The suit has been contested by defendant No.1,
who has taken a preliminary objection that the suit for
declaration simplicitor is not maintainable as the plaintiff
has not claimed any consequential relief. He has taken
another preliminary objection that the suit is not properly
valued for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction as the
market value of the suit property is Rs 82,54,232/- and
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 5 of 24
3/5th share in this property sould be valued at Rs
49,32,540/-, whereas the suit has been valued only at Rs
21 lacs. He has also taken another preliminary objection
that since the alleged deemed codicil has not been attested
by any witness, it does not comply with the mandatory
requirement of law and, therefore, the plaint does not
disclose any valid cause of action.
4. On merits, it has been alleged that the document
dated 06th November, 1996 and its annexures are forged
and fabricated documents. It has been claimed that the
documents relied upon by the plaintiff are inconsistent with
each other and the annexures of the document dated 06th
November, 1996 do not bear any date. It has also been
alleged that the deceased had bequeathed clearly
demarcated and specified areas and rights to her sons.
5. The following issues are framed on the pleadings of
the parties:-
(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
(ii) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for
purposes Court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction?
OPD
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 6 of 24
(iii) Whether late Smt. Shakuntala Devi had executed
documents marked annexures 3 to 9 to the plaint?
OPP
(iv) In case Issue No.3 is proved in the affirmative,
whether the said documents either collectively or
independently constitute a deemed codicil, which
supersedes or modifies the registered Will of the
testatrix dated 17th September, 1981? OPP
(v) Whether the restrictions contained in para 4 of the
registered will dated 17 th September, 1981 on
transfer of the share in the suit property is void
and invalid under Section 138 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925? If so, whether the plaintiffs
have absolute right to sell their respective
portions? OPP
(vi) Relief.
6. Issue No.1
No submissions were made on this issue during
the course of the arguments. The issue is decided against
defendant No.1.
7. Issue No.2
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 7 of 24
No submissions were made on this issue during
the course of the arguments. The issue is decided against
defendant No.1.
8. Issue No.3
The plaintiffs have filed their own affidavit by way
of evidence. In their affidavits, the plaintiffs have supported
the case setup in the plaint. They have also produced their
sister Smt. Shashi Mathur in the witness box as PW-4.
Smt. Shashi Mathur has stated that on the 13th day after
the death of her mother, the almirah was opened in the
presence of all the brothers and sisters, the documents were
taken out from it, and were handed over to her after
supplying photocopies to all brothers and sisters. She has
identified the handwriting of her mother Smt. Shakuntala
Devi on the documents Ex.PW-4/1 to PW-4/7. During
cross-examination, she stated that her mother had started
writing regarding change of circumstances, but she did not
change her Will which she had got registered in the office of
Sub-Registrar in her presence.
7. Defendant No.1 has filed his own affidavit by way
of evidence. No other witness has been produced by him in
support of his case.
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 8 of 24
8. I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Smt.
Shakuntala Devi as regards the handwriting on the
documents Ex.PW-4/1 to PW-4/7. During cross-
examination of the witness, no such suggestion was given to
her that these documents are not in the handwriting of the
deceased. When a witness deposes a particular fact and no
suggestion to the contrary is given to him during cross-
examination, the person against whom the deposition is
made is deemed to have admitted that fact. Since defendant
No.1 was disputing the claims of the plaintiff that Ex.PW-
4/1 to PW-4/7 are in the handwriting of late Smt.
Shakuntala Devi, it was incumbent upon him to dispute the
deposition of PW-4 in this regard by suggesting to her that
in fact these documents were not in the hand of late Smt.
Shakuntala Devi. Even defendant No.1, in his affidavit by
way of evidence, did not claim that the documents Ex.PW-
4/1 to PW-4/7 were not in the hand of his mother. In his
cross-examination, defendant No.1 admitted that besides
the Will, 8 FDRs and documents Ex.PW-4/1 to PW-4/7 were
recovered from the almirah of the deceased, after her death.
In fact, in the later part of the cross-examination, he
specifically admitted that documents Ex.PW-4/1 to PW-4/7
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 9 of 24
are in the handwriting of his mother. Thus, it is now an
admitted fact that documents are in the handwriting of late
Smt. Shakuntala Devi. The issue is decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
9. Issue No. 4 and 5
These issues are interconnected and can be
conveniently decided together.
EX.PW-4/2 is the main document relied upon by
the plaintiffs, though certain portions of the property are
also referred to in the stamped document Ex.PW-4/1 and
the document Ex.PW-4/3. Vide document PW-4/2, the
deceased wrote that her house B-4/196 belongs to all her 5
songs Suresh Chand, Naresh Chand, Mahesh Chand,
Ishwar Chand and Harish Chand and that her daughters
have no right in it. This document, however, does not bear
any date and is not signed by any person as an attesting
witness. In the absence of any date on this document, it
cannot be ascertained whether it was written before or after
execution of the Will dated 17th September, 1981. No
evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to prove the date on
which this document was written by late Smt. Shakuntala
Devi. None of the plaintiffs claimed to be present at the
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 10 of 24
time when this document was written by her. PW-4 also did
not tell the Court as to on which date, this document was
written by her mother. It is true that the document Ex.PW-
4/1 which is dated 06 th November, 1996 and has been
written on stamp paper purchased on the very same day
refers to certain documents. But, since the Ex.PW-4/1 does
not describe the documents referred in it, it cannot be
ascertained whether Ex.PW-4/2 was one of those
documents or not. This is more so when Ex.PW-4/2 does
not bear any date. The same applies to the document
Ex.PW-4/3, which contains a reference to some portion of
the suit property. In fact, PW-2 expressly admitted in his
cross-examination that he was not aware of the documents
Ex.PW-4/1 to PW-4/7 during the lifetime of his mother.
10. What is more important is that none of the
documents, out of Ex.PW-4/1 to Ex.PW-4/7, is witnessed
by any person. Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, to the
extent, it is relevant, reads as under:
Execution of unprivileged Wills- Every
testator, not being a soldier employed in
an expedition or engaged in actual
warfare, [or an airman so employed or
engaged] or a mariner at sea, shall
execute his will according to the following
rules:--
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 11 of 24
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or
more witnesses, each of whom has seen
the testator sign or affix his mark to the
Will or has seen some other person sign
the Will, in the presence and by the
direction of the testator, or has received
from the testator a personal
acknowledgment of his signature or
mark, or the signature of such other
person; and each of the witnesses shall
sign the Will in the presence of the
testator, but it shall not be necessary
that more than one witness be present at
the same time, and no particular form of
attestation shall be necessary.
Since Smt. Shankuntala Devi Mathur was not a
soldier or an airman, employed in an expedition or engaged
in actual warfare not was she a mariner at sea, any Will or
Codicil by her was required to be executed in terms of
Section 63(C) of the Act. As provided in Section 2(b) of the
Act "codicil" means an instrument made in relation to a
Will, and explaining, altering or adding to its dispositions,
and shall be deemed to form part of the Will. The Codicil,
therefore, is also required to be executed in the same
manner in which a Will is to be executed.
11. In Bhagat Ram And Another vs. Suresh and
Ors.: (2003) 12 SCC 35, Supreme Court observed that since
by fiction of law, the codicil, though it may have been
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 12 of 24
executed separately and at a place or time different from the
Will, forms part of the related Will, it would be anomalous to
accept the contention that though a Will is required to be
executed and proved as per the rules contained in the
Succession Act and the Evidence Act, the document
explaining, altering or adding to the Will and forming part of
the Will is not required to be executed or proved in the same
manner. In this regard, the Court made a reference to
Section 70 of the Act which expressly provides that no
unprivileged Will or codicil, nor any part thereof, shall be
revoked otherwise than by marriage or by another Will or
codicil or by some writing, declaring an intention to revoke
the same and executed in the manner in which an
unprivileged Will is required to be executed. The Court
expressly held that the same rule of execution, therefore,
apply to a codicil, which apply to a Will to which the codicil
relate and the evidence adduced in proof of execution of a
codicil must satisfy the same requirements as apply to the
proof of execution of a Will.
12. In Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat Vs. Pragnaben
Jamnadas Kataria: AIR 2009 SC 1389, after referring to
provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act,
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 13 of 24
Supreme Court held that one of the requirements of due
execution of a Will is its attestation by two more witnesses
which is mandatory. No judgment to the contrary has been
brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
Since none of the documents out of Ex.PW-4/1 to PW-4/7
has been executed in the manner, prescribed in Section
63(C) of the Indian Succession Act, they cannot be
considered as a valid Will or codicil to the Will dated 17th
September, 1981. The issue is decided against the plaintiffs
and in favour of defendant No.1.
13. Issue No. 5
Section 138 of Indian Succession Act reads as
under:-
"Direction that fund be employed in
particular manner following absolute
bequest of same to or for benefit of any
person.- Where a fund is bequeathed
absolutely to or for the benefit of any
person, but the Will contains a direction
that it shall be applied or enjoyed in a
particular manner, the legatee shall be
entitled to receive the fund as if the Will
had contained no such direction."
14. A bare perusal of the above-referred Section would
show that it applies to a case, where, on a reading of the
Will, the intention of the Testator is found to be to give
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 14 of 24
whole of his estate absolutely to the legatee, but, he has
imposed restrictions on the right of the legatee to use and
enjoy that property as its absolute owner. In such a case,
though the bequest will stand, the subsequent clause in the
Will placing restriction on the right of the legatee would be
treated as void. In other words, this Section applies to a
case where the Testator has devised an absolute estate to
the legatee, but, has specifically added a clause, which has
the effect of reducing his power to deal with that property as
an absolute estate. In such a case, the restriction placed on
the right of the legatee needs to be rejected on account of its
being repugnant to the absolute bequest of that property to
the legatee. To take certain examples where a Will provides
that on the death of the Testator, the legatee shall enjoy the
property as its absolute owner, but he will not be entitled to
alienate it or where he, while bequeathing the property to
one of his family members, puts a rider that he will have no
right to alienate it for a particular period or where he
stipulates in his Will that the legatee will be able to sell the
property bequeathed to him only to a particular person,
thereby restricting the right of the legatee as absolute owner
of the estate.
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 15 of 24
15. However, the Will, executed by late Smt.
Shakuntala Devi on 17th September, 1981, does not come
within the purview of Section 138 of Indian Succession Act,
since this is not a case where any legatee has been given
absolute right in any part of the property and then the right
of that particular legatee with respect to use and enjoyment
of that part of the property has been restricted or taken
away. In this Will, there is no stipulation that any of the
legatees will have no right or will have a limited right with
respect to disposal of that property. A perusal of the Will
would show that one part of the ground floor has been
bequeathed to Shri Harish Chand Mathur, whereas the
remaining part of the ground floor has been bequeathed to
Ishwar Chand Mathur. The open space on the first floor,
above the dining and drawing room, including toilets and
kitchen was bequeathed to Shri Mahesh Chand Mathr, who
could make construction thereon in accordance with
municipal law. Another open space on the first floor, above
the two bed rooms, attached bath room and kitchen which
were under the tenancy of one Sohan, was bequeathed to
Suresh Chand Mathur, for raising construction thereon in
accordance with municipal laws. The construction on the
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 16 of 24
first floor by Shri Mahesh Chand Mathur and Shri Suresh
Chand Mathur was to be raised within 10 years of the death
of the Testator. In the event of Shri Mahesh Chand Mathur
and/or Suresh Chand Mathur failing to raise construction
on the first floor within the time stipulated in the Will, the
portion of the person failing to raise construction on the
first floor was to revert to Naresh Chand Mathur, who, then
was to have complete right on the same as a full owner. In
that event, the rights which Naresh Chand Mathur was
given in the event of construction being raised on the first
floor within the time stipulated in the Will, were to revert to
Shri Harish Chand Mathur. In the event of Shri Naresh
Chand Mathur also failing to raise construction on the first
floor within 10 years of his becoming entitled to first floor,
his entitlement is also to revert back to Shri Harish Chand
Mathur. The stipulation for construction to be raised on the
first floor, by Shri Mahesh Chand Mathur and Shri Suresh
Chand Mathur, within 10 years of the death of the Testator,
was not such a condition which could not have been fulfilled
and, therefore, cannot be said to be an impossible condition.
The conditional bequest of the estate is not unknown to law
and is well-recognized by it.
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 17 of 24
16. A conditional bequest does not come within the
purview of Section 138 of Indian Succession Act which
applies to an altogether different situation where there is an
absolute bequest of the legatee, but his right to deal with
the property as its absolute owner is sought to be curtailed
by the Testator. In fact, Section 131 of Indian Succession
Act is the provision which applies to the bequest made by
late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. This provision, to the extent it is
relevant, reads as under:-
"Bequest over, conditional upon
happening or not happening of
specified uncertain event. (1) A bequest
be made to any person with the condition
superadded that, in case a specified
uncertain event shall happen, the thing
bequeathed shall go to another person, or
that in case a specified uncertain event
shall not happen, the thing bequeathed
shall go over to another person.
Illustration
(ii) An estate is bequeathed to A with a
proviso that if A shall dispute the
competency of the testator to make a will,
the estate shall go to B. A disputes the
competency of the testator to make a will.
The estate goes to B."
This section deals with a defeasance clause,
whereas Section 138 of the Act deals with a repugnant
clause. The distinction behind a repugnant provision and a
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 18 of 24
defeasance provision is that where the intention of the
Testator is to maintain an absolute estate conferred on the
legatee, but he simply adds some restriction, in derogation
of incidents of such absolute ownership, such restrictive
clause would be repugnant to the absolute grant and,
therefore void, but, where the grant of an absolute estate is
expressly or impliedly made subject to defeasance o the
happening of a contingency and where the effect of such
defeasance would not be a violation of any rule of law, the
original estate is curtailed and the gift over is taken to be
valid and operative. Section 138 thus provides for
divestment of the estate which has already vested, but is
subject to divested by some act or event at an after period.
Of course, the defeasance must be in favour of somebody in
existence at the time the bequest is made.
17. In Administrator-General vs. Hughes: 21 IC 183,
the Testator made a bequest in favour of a Baptist Church
with a condition that (1) no ordained Minister or missionary
be ever elected as a Deacon of the Church or be allowed to
canvass for votes to secure his election. (2) that two cups,
one of fermented and the other of unfermented wine should
be provided at the communion service; (3) that the said
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 19 of 24
Deacons do not introduce any innovation into the practice
of the said Church, but adhere to the old practices. In the
event of the non-fulfillment of the conditions there was a gift
over in favour of another Church. It was held that there
was nothing illegal or impossible in the conditions and on
non-fulfilment of those conditions, the gift over came into
operation.
In Shyama Charan vs. Sarup Chandra: 14 IC 708,
the Testator made an absolute estate to a legatee with
condition superadded that the legatee shall personally live
in the house and that if he does not live personally in the
house, his interest shall and the estate will go over to
someone else. Holding that there was nothing illegal in the
condition, the bequest was upheld by the Court.
In Enasu vs. Antony AIR 1969 Ker 207, a clause
in the Will provided that if any of the persons who had been
enjoined to meet the expenses of the funeral ceremonies of
the Testator and his wife and of certain specified charities
commits default in meeting such expenses, then such
person shall have no right to the property earmarked for
such expenses. The condition was held to be a condition
subsequent.
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 20 of 24
18. Since Shri Mahesh Chand Mathur and Shri Suresh
Chand Mathur admittedly have failed to raise construction
on the first floor within 10 years of the death of the
deceased Testator, the portion bequeathed to them on the
first floor stands bequeathed to Shri Naresh Chand Mathur,
who will have to raise construction on it within 10 years
from the date he became entitled to raise construction on
the first floor. The rights in the second floor over the
construction which Shri Naresh Chand Mathur is required
to raise within the time stipulated in the Will will devolve on
Harish Chand Mathur. If Shri Naresh Chand Mathur does
not raise construction on the first floor within 10 years of
becoming entitled to raise such a construction, his rights in
respect of the first floor will revert back to Shri Harish
Chand Mathur.
19. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred to
the decision of this Court in Smt. Rajrani Sehgal Vs. Dr.
Parshottam Lal and others AIR 1992, Delhi, 134. The will
of the Testator in that case, to the extent it is relevant for
our purpose, provided as under:-
"I wish that after my death my son Dr.
Parshotam Lal will be entitled to the
whole of my properties....
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 21 of 24
.....I also wish that my son Dr. Parshotam
Lal shall not sell or mortgage or transfer
or pawn the immoveable properties
during his life time.
I also wish that my grandsons or my
daughter in law shall not sell, transfer or
mortgage the properties to anybody after
the, death of Parshotam Lal.
I also further wish that the sons or
daughters of my grandsons shall not sell,
transfer or mortgage the properties to
anybody."
20. It was contended by the appellant before this Court
that the Testator had created perpetuity in his family and
has tended to limit the absolute enjoyment of the estate for
an indefinite period which was prohibited by law since it
offended the rule against perpetuity as contemplated by
Section 114 of the Act and, therefore, the bequest in favour
of the Testator was void and inoperative. On the other hand,
it was contended on behalf of the son/respondent before
this Court that once the Court was satisfied that the
Testator wanted to give his all to the named legatee, then all
subsequent restrictions would be void being repugnant to
the predominant intention of passing the entire estate to the
heir. This Court was of the view that the Testator had
expressed an unequivocal desire that his son would be
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 22 of 24
entitled to all his immovable and movable properties and
that the restrictions imposed against alienation were to be
treated as repugnant to the dominant intention of the
Testator and were liable to be ignored. This judgment has
absolutely no applicability to the facts of this case before
this Court, where there is no restriction on the right of any
legatee to deal with the portion bequeathed to him, in any
manner he desired.
21. The plaintiff has also referred to Ramchandra vs.
Anasuyabai: AIR 1969 Mysore 69, Pyare LAl vs.
Rameshwar Das: AIR 1963 SC 1706 (1706), K. Babu Rao
vs. Datta Rao: AIR 1992 Kant 290, Ajit Chandra vs. Akhil
Chandra, AIR 1960 Cal 551, Surinder Kumar and Ors vs.
Gyan Chand and Ors.: AIR 1957 SC 875, 1958. I have gone
through this judgment. None of them has any applicability
to the matters in issue before this Court. The issue is,
therefore, decided against the plaintiffs.
22. Issue No.6
In view of my findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 5, the
plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the declaration sought by
them in the suit.
CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 23 of 24
ORDER
23. The suit is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE NOVEMBER 09, 2010 bg CS(OS)NO.1818/2001 Page 24 of 24