Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

79. The plaintiff/PW-1 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1(f) - (h) and the defendant no.3 on 13.07.2006, during which he stated that he was aged about 63 years old and had served in the MCD from 1966 to 1993. He stated that the defendant no.1 used to subscribe to a Hindi language newspaper, however he did not know whether he was Roop Chand Jayant & Ors. Vs. Ram Chander & Ors.

educated or not. He denied the suggestion that the defendant no.1 was totally illiterate and could not write, except for appending his signatures. He stated that his grandfather Sh. Shiv Lal expired in 1956 and the properties were divided in the year 1958. He denied the suggestion that the defendant no.1 only got property no. 55, Humayunpur, New Delhi in the said partition and volunteered to state that the defendant no.1 also got property no. 261A and 261B Arjun Nagar, New Delhi as well. He also denied the suggestion that properties no. no. 261A and 261B Arjun Nagar, New Delhi belonged to the DDA and that property no. 261B still belonged to the DDA. He deposed that he did not know whether DDA was recovering damages in respect of property no. 261B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. He stated that he did not know whether the property no. 261B, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi had been mutated in the name of defendant no.3. He deposed that it was a matter of record that the defendant no.3 paid damages to DDA as per Mark A (collectively consisting of 30 pages). He deposed that the said land had already been held as belonging to his father/defendant no.1 by the Court of Sh. P.D. Jarwal, the then Sub-Judge in the case filed by his father/defendant no.1. He denied the suggestion Roop Chand Jayant & Ors. Vs. Ram Chander & Ors.

the SDA flat and denied the suggestion that the receipts and other documents with respect to the flat had been procured fraudulently and malafidely to grab the SDA flat on the basis of forged, false and concocted documents. She denied the suggestion that DDA had given the aforesaid flat in lieu of the property no. 261A and B Arjun Nagar, which was demolished by the DDA in the year 1975-1976, during emergency. She deposed that she was paying the house tax of property no. 261B, Arjun Nagar, Delhi since the execution of the will in her favour. She stated that she did not know who was paying the house tax of the property no. 261A, Arjun Nagar, Delhi as there was no such property in existence since the same had already been demolished by the DDA. She denied the suggestion that no such will had been executed in her favour in respect to property no. 261B, Arjun Nagar, Delhi. She denied the suggestion that in collusion with MCD officials, she had managed to mutate the property in her name. She denied the suggestion that on 29.11.1977, the SDA flat was given/allotted in lieu of the house demolished by the DDA under clearance program on 26.09.1975. She deposed that the defendant no.1 suffered a paralytic attack in the year 1975 - 1976 and she took Roop Chand Jayant & Ors. Vs. Ram Chander & Ors.

Roop Chand Jayant & Ors. Vs. Ram Chander & Ors.

examination of the plaintiff, the counsel for the defendants no.3, defendants no/ 1(f) - (h) have put to the plaintiff that the property no. 261-A and 261-B, Arjun Nagar were DDA land and the property no. 261-B still belonged to the DDA.

103. With respect to property no. B-7/68-I, SDA, New Delhi, he has argued that although the defendants no.1 and 3 denied that the property was allotted by the DDA in lieu of demolition of the property of 261-A, Arjun Nagar; the DDA on a number of occasions clarified its stance that the SDA property was allotted to the defendant no.3 as evictee of Arjun Nagar. Further, Sh. Jagbir Singh, Record Keeper, SDMC has deposed in his cross- examination dated 11.08.2017 that he had brought the application dated 26.03.1996 moved by the plaintiff for cancellation of the mutation in the name of the defendant no.3, in which notice was issued, however he could not say what order had been passed as the same was not on the file. He also stated that he could not say as to how the mutation of the property no. 261-B, Arjun Nagar, Delhi had been done in the name of Mallo Devi. He also stated that the DDA filed an application dated 24.09.2009 wherein it Roop Chand Jayant & Ors. Vs. Ram Chander & Ors.

116. The plaintiff has averred in para no. 3 of the plaint that Sh.Shiv Lal "left behind several house/properties and lands in village Humayunpur, New Delhi and Arjun Nagar, New Delhi Roop Chand Jayant & Ors. Vs. Ram Chander & Ors.

bearing Municipal Nos.53, 53-A, 54 and 55 Humayunpur, New Delhi and 13G, 13GA, Humayunpur, New Delhi and 261-A and 261-B Arjun Nagar, New Delhi".

117. Further in para no.4 of the plaint, the plaintiff states that the sons of Sh. Shiv Lal partitioned the aforementioned properties by way of mutual family settlement in the year 1958, as per which House no.55, Humayunpur, New Delhi and 261-A and 261-B Arjun Nagar, New Delhi "came to the share of Shri Ram Chander and his family. The plaintiff further states that "Thus in the above manner properties number 55 Humayunpur and 261A & B Arjun Nagar came in the hands of defendant no.1 and 2 and the plaintiff as ancestral properties. The plaintiff being a member of Hindu Undivided Family (of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law) has become entitled to inherit one-half (½) share in the entire ancestral Joint Hindu Family properties being the co- parcener".