Skip to main content
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2024.09.11
14:29:21
+0530
father at point A. On being suggested that alongwith this letter, his father
had also enclosed the copy of Will dated 25.09.1989 of late Sh. Dina
Nath Nijhawan, he answered that he was not aware as being in Army,
outstation in J&K, all these letters were routed through Smt. Swaraj
Soni, who was his aunt and mother-in-law of the plaintiff and
volunteered, that this letter too must have been routed through Smt.
Swaraj Soni. He again volunteered, that it was mutually understood that
he would send his messenger whenever he had to report Ms. Swaraj
Soni who used to receive all the correspondence from UK and USA and
used to deposit the documents with the L&DO. He denied that Sh. B. R
Nijhawan used to send correspondence and documents to L&DO either
directly or through him or that he had not sent any letter or document
through Ms. Swaraj Soni. On being asked, whether he knew that letter
dated 10.01.1994 was not signed by Sh. Lajpat Rai Nijhawan, he
answered that he did not know. On being suggested that whether it
would be correct that because of letter dated 21.02.1994 and 28.02.1994
written by Sh. Lajpat Rai Nijhawan and Sh. B.R Nijhawan respectively
where they had enclosed Will dated 25.09.1989, mutation was not done
on the basis of letter dated 10.01.1994 written by Sh. B.R Nijhawan, he
denied this suggestion and deposed that there was never any Will dated
25.09.1989. Since there was no such Will in existence, there was no
question of mutation being not done on the basis so suggested. On being
suggested whether it would be correct that Sh. Lajpat Rai Nijhawan till
his death (in the year 2004) never disputed or questioned the letter dated
21.02.1994 written by him to L&DO and he answered that he did not
CS No. 613703/2016 Digitally
signed by
No. 33 of 69 PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.09.11
14:29:29
+0530
know about it. On being suggested that would it be correct that Sh. B.R
Nijhawan never disputed or questioned Lajpat Rai Nijhawan's letter
dated 21.02.1994 and his own letter dated 28.02.1994 written to L&DO,
he answered that he did not know and volunteered, that his father and
Sh. Lajpat Rai Nijhawan had given affidavits to L&DO in respect of
Will dated 05.04.1965. He denied that his father and Lajpat Rai
Nijhawan had never pressed the application and affidavits given to
L&DO on the basis of Will dated 05.04.1965 and pursued mutation on
the basis of Will dated 25.09.1989. He denied that he did not write or
question the mutation done by L&DO in favour of B.R Nijhawan and
A.K Nijhawan on the basis of Will dated 25.09.1989 of Sh. Dina Nath
Nijhawan. In a follow up question, he was asked that when he had
written to L&DO questioning the mutation, he answered that he did not
write anything to L&DO and volunteered, that he and his uncle Lajpat
Rai Nijhawan came to know about this in the year 2002 only. He denied
that from the very beginning, he as well as his uncle Lajpat Rai
Nijhawan knew about the mutation done by L&DO on the basis of Will
dated 25.09.1989. He denied that after the death of his father B.R
Nijhawan, vide application dated 21.12.2001, he had applied for
mutation with L&DO qua the ground floor of property no. 13/27, West
Patel Nagar, New Delhi and volunteered, that the mutation was applied
for the entire property. He was then shown a handwritten letter dated
21.12.2001, which was a part of Ex.PW5/1 and admitted that this letter
was in his handwriting. He denied that vide this letter, he had not
applied for mutation of the entire property. He admitted that with his
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH 2024.09.11
14:29:36
+0530
application for mutation, he had filed affidavit of Anil Kumar Nijhawan,
Kamla Nijhawan and his own affidavit which were at page 107, 108 and
109 of Ex.PW5/1 (colly). On being suggested that the affidavits of Anil
Kumar Nijhawan and Kamla Nijhawan were prepared by him only and
then they signed affidavits at his instance, he admitted this suggestion
and volunteered that three affidavits were given for second mutation and
first mutation was in the name of Anil Kumar Nijhawan and his father.
2024.09.11
14:29:44
+0530
October 2011 when she came to India. He denied that Lajpat Rai
Nijhawan was not and never claimed to be the owner of first and second
floor of property no. 13/27, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. He denied that
Lajpat Rai Nijhawan and his wife Uma Nijhawan never challenged the
Will dated 25.09.1989 and the mutation dated 22.05.1996 done on the
basis of the said Will. On being asked, whether he could show any
document to prove that they had challenged the Will dated 25.09.1989
and mutation dated 22.05.1996 done on the basis of the said Will, he
answered in negative and volunteered, that they came to know about this
several years later in the year 2002 and thereafter, Lajpat Rai Nijhawan
executed his Will whereby he bequeathed his first and second floor to
him and allowed his son to shift on the second floor of property no.
13/27, West Patel Nagar.
2024.09.11
14:31:26
+0530
there was any Will left behind by the deceased. She admitted that in
Ex.PW1/D1, there was a reference of a Will left by the deceased and
that Will was the registered one. Copy of the will was annexed in the
said affidavit and was exhibited as Ex.PY. (Here again, exhibition was
done only for the purposes of identification.) She admitted that Sh.
Balwant Rai Nijhawan and Sh. Lajpat Rai Nijhawan had furnished their
affidavits in support of application Ex.PW1/1. The copies of the
affidavits were exhibited as Ex.PW1/D2 and Ex.PW1/D3. She admitted
that on 21.12.2001, an application for mutation was filed by Brig. V.K
Nijhawan and Sh. Anil Kumar Nijhawan (plaintiff) for mutation in their
joint names and the said application was Ex.PW1/D4. She admitted that
in respect of the said application, Smt. Kamla Nijhawan, Sh. Anil
Kumar Nijhawan and Sh. V.K Nijhawan had furnished their affidavits
which were Ex.PW1/D5 to Ex.PW1/D7. She also admitted that vide
mutation dated 20.02.2002, property was mutated in the joint names of
Sh. Anil Kumar Nijhawan and Sh. V.K Nijhawan. The mutation order
was Ex.PW1/D8. Thereafter, vide application (Ex.PW1/D9), Sh. Anil
Kumar Nijhawan and Sh. V.K Nijhawan had jointly applied for the
conversion of the property into free hold. She further deposed that as per
the procedure followed by L&DO, in case of mutation on the basis of
Will, affidavits of the beneficiaries are to be taken on record. Affidavits
of other LRs are not to be called for L&DO in case the mutation is on
the basis of a Will. She was not sure whether in case of mutation on the
basis of Will, affidavits/ no objections of LRs other than the
beneficiaries are to be taken or not. As per her record, there was no letter
CS No. 613703/2016 Digitally
No. 49 of 69 signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date: