Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Recording the said undertaking, the application is disposed of. I.A.17732/2023 (u/O XII Rule 6 CPC)

12. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree on admission. Submission of Mr. Sood, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff is that the Defendant No.1, who is the brother, relies upon a relinquishment deed executed by Defendant No.2 i.e., the other sister in order to claim 2/3rd share in the property. According to him, the fact that the relinquishment deed exists and does not record the existence of any other Will or testamentary document, is proved and admitted in terms of the relinquishment deed. The relinquishment deed lists the Plaintiff as one of the legal heirs of her father. Since the Defendant No.2 has, unequivocally, relinquished her share in the assets of her father in favour of Defendant No.1, according to Mr. Sood, the admitted position is that there is no other Will or testamentary document. Thus, he prays that a preliminary decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is liable to be passed.

13. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1, the brother submits that the stand in the written statement that there exists a Will or testamentary document, has to be taken at its face value. The same would be proved by Defendant No.1 at trial. An application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC has been filed to which the Plaintiff ought to disclose the Will or the testamentary document.

"5. The Answering Defendant No.1 reserve his rights to add, modify or otherwise elaborate his reply, averments, contentions, submissions and to place on record further documents as may be required, or as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court or as when he has access to such documents which will clearly establishes the rights and entitlements of the answering Defendant No.1. In fact, it is well within the knowledge of the Plaintiff that some testamentary documents exist and the answering Defendant No.1 has reasonable apprehension that such a documents, may be in the custody of the Plaintiff and only after knowing the facts as to the clear facts of inheritance, the Plaintiff has preferred to institute the suit thereby depriving the rightful claims of the answering Defendant No. 1. In fact it is the bounden duty under law to produce such documents so that air is cleared and the rights are justifiably deciphered and distributed. However, since it is apparent that she may not be having all the rights hence, in order to make illegal gains by suppressing such document the Plaintiff has instituted the present suit. In view of the above, the present suit is liable to be rejected with cost."

15. In response to this, the existence and possession of any such document is denied by the Plaintiff. Statement of the Plaintiff has also been recorded today, which is extracted above. The bald plea that there could be some testamentary document is not sufficient to oppose the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. A perusal of the relinquishment deed executed between Defendant no.1 and 2, would show that the clear recital in the relinquishment deed to the following effect: