Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It has also been pleaded that defendants conspired to acquire the property kept in the name of the plaintiff's parents by making Chetanya Razdan as the sole heirs of the locker number 32 of Central Bank of India, Branch Jayendraganj, Lashkar, District Gwalior(M.P.) and on getting information, plaintiff immediately informed the bank about the same. After exposure of this conspiracy, defendant Sanjay Gupta falsified the documents of the proceedings of this conspiracy and made it disputed by striking out the names of Dr. Maharaj Narayan Razdan and the plaintiff in locker number 32. It has also been pleaded that the property in question belonged to Dr. Maharaj Narayan Razdan and Mrs. Khemrani Razdan and after their death the plaintiff and his elder brother Chetanya were to get half share each and there was never any partition between them and the alleged fake will and the alleged fake trust deed are untouched by the plaintiff and hence the alleged will and trust deed are fake, null and void. It has also been stated that although as per law, the property in dispute should be considered to be the property of the plaintiff and in alternatively the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the residential disputed property which is shown by the green line marking 'A' in the plaint map. The defendant does not have the status of a settler, and alleged fake will is unproven.

19. On the basis of pleadings, learned VI Additional District Judge, District Gwalior has framed as many as 13 issues and directed the parties to lead their oral and documentary evidence. After recording the evidence of both the parties, learned trial court allowed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff and declared the order dated 10/11/1999 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust as null and void and directed the defendants to hand over the peaceful possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff within a period of one month and further directed the defendant No. 2/Sanjay Gupta to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the plaintiff as mesne profits from 05/05/2000 till the vacant possession of the disputed property is handed over to the plaintiff. Hence, this first appeal.

22. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the trust deed dated 16.01.1998 is registered document and has been executed by the Chetanya Kumar Razdan, who has authority to execute the same, but no relief seeking setting side or avoiding such deed was asked by the plaintiff, (without admitting anything contain) as per averments itself, the deed may be voidable, but is good till set aside by competent court of law. Hence, the trial court has committed serious error of law in decreeing the suit declaring the plaintiff to be exclusive owner of the property without setting aside or declaring the trust deed dated 16.01.1998 to be void. It is further argued that Learned trial court has relied over the document Ex. P-71 and 72 (Notary Register of Late Vidhya Tambat) in the cross examination of the defendant no.7 Gopal Das Goyal, and objection regarding admissibility of such document was raised as it is photocopy (which is so mentioned in para No. 13 and 20 of PW-7), same objection was kept open for decision of Court, but despite delivering final judgment the court has not decided such objection, hence the judgment is vitiated having been incomplete in the eye of law, beside such documents could not have been relied on.

53. As per the arguement of learned counse for appellants the trust deed was not put to challenge by the plaintiff and therefore, it can not be declared as null and void and it may be true that registration is faulty but merely by execution of trust deed, the property stood vested in the trustee by virtue of Section 4 of Indian Trust Act. However, the above arguement is not teneble because the reading the plaint it is evident that ample pleadings are available on it to show that the said deed was challenged and claimed to be as null & void. It is trite law that the requirement of pleading is only to make the other party aware of what is being contested in the case and what is going to be adjudicated and the only purpose of the pleading is to make the other party aware of the case of the other party. Issues framed in this case clearly depicts what all has been challenged and the order Passed in LPA Court specifies what is under challenge. In the case of Bhagwati Prasad Vs Shri Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735 it is held:-