Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. On the contrary Mr.Sethi, counsel for the defendant no.1 has also drawn attention of the Court to numerous documents of the plaintiff, wherein plaintiff has given his address as 12, Jaipur, Estate Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi.

37. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is also the owner of 12, Jaipur Estate, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi as well. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff are independent documents and cannot be termed as self- serving documents or documents procured after filing of the present suit or procured soon before the filing of the present suit. In my view the possession of the plaintiff in the present suit cannot be ascertained simply on the basis of documents filed by either of the parties, but the surrounding circumstances are also to be considered, which according to me supports the case of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 claims that he was exclusively looking after his ailing mother, which prima facie appears to be incorrect. Voluminous documents have been filed on record by the plaintiff, which includes a large number of bills for payments made to nurses and the bills of the hospitals, would show that it is the plaintiff who was looking after his ailing mother and not the defendant no.1.