MAHENDER SINGH SACHDEVA Vs. KAILASH RANI WADHWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellant seeks setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby decreeing the suit for possession in favour of the respondent and against the appellant in respect of the ground floor of property bearing No. E-220, ground Floor, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi. By the said judgment and decree the appellant has also been restrained from parting with or creating third party interest in respect of the suit property.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are that Shri Sujan Chand was allotted plot No. E-4/220-221, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi vide registered lease deed dated 9.3.1960 and the same was got converted into a free hold property vide conveyance deed dated 9.9.1996. The property was built by a builder and Shri Sujan Chand had the ground and the first floor of the property to himself while the rest was kept by the builder. He executed a gift deed dated 24.7.1997 in favour of one of his daughters, the respondent herein Smt. Kailash Rani vide which he gifted her the property. The other daughter of Shri Sujan Chand, Smt. Balwant Kaur is the wife of the appellant herein. Due to the ill health of Smt. Balwant Kaur, she alongwith her family shifted to Delhi and occupied the ground floor of the said property. The respondent served a legal notice dated 30.6.01 upon the appellant to vacate the said premises. On failing to do so, the respondent filed a suit bearing No. 57/01/04 for possession and injunction which vide judgment dated 31.8.2005 was decreed in favour of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. V. Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has passed the judgment and decree in favour of the respondent without appreciating the facts of the case and the law applicable. Counsel further contended that both the documents i.e. the Will dated 23.12.96 and the Gift Deed dated 24.7.1997 were executed in suspicious circumstances, more particularly when Shri. Sujan Chand was clearly attached to both his daughters i.e. Smt. Balwant Kaur, wife of the appellant and the respondent Smt. Kailash Rani. Accentuating this argument, counsel submitted that it is inconceivable that the father would not disclose the name of his second daughter in the alleged Will and the Gift Deed and would not give any reason for detracting one of his daughters from the share of his property. Counsel further submitted that late Shri Sujan Chand was in possession of the ground floor and the first floor of the said property and he got the said lease hold property converted into free hold through a conveyance deed dated 9.9.96. He further stated that the family of Smt. Balwant Kaur consisting of herself, her husband Mr. Mahender Singh Sachdeva (appellant herein) and her children were residing in Mumbai and later shifted to the said premises at the instance of Shri Sujan Chand and his wife Smt. Seeta Wanti. Counsel further submitted that one of the reasons for shifting of Smt. Balwant Kaur was that she was informed that family of the respondent was ill treating and harassing her parents. Counsel further submitted that Smt. Seeta Wanti, mother of the said two daughters, expired on 25.2.1996 and due to her demise, Shri Sujan Chand became closer to Smt. Balwant Kaur. Counsel further submitted that in fact Shri Sujan Chand was residing on the ground floor of the said property where the family of Smt. Balwant Kaur was residing, while the respondent along with her family was residing on the first floor and this fact alone would show that the father was deeply attached to his elder daughter Smt. Balwant Kaur. Counsel further submitted that Smt. Balwant Kaur, wife of the appellant died on 28.11.96 and just within a week's time the alleged will dated 3.12.1996 was executed which fact by itself appears to be quite abnormal and improbable as within such a short span of time no father would take any step to favour one of his daughters while disfavouring the family members of the other daughter who died just a week ago from the date of the execution of the Will. Counsel further contended that if the validity of the Will is taken as correct then again there was no need for the father to execute a Gift Deed in favour of the same daughter.