BIPIN GUPTA Vs. LAXMI NARAIN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Along with the suit, this application was also filed for interim directions. The Court on 9/3/2000 granted ex parte stay in terms of the prayer made in the application. The prayer,in the said application was to the following effect :

(2.) Along with the plaint schedule of properties has also been filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant has contended that no stay could have been granted by the Court in relation to the property bearing House No.12, Sadhna Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi and property bearing House No .34, Sadhna Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi and shop bearing municipal NoJ1142, Chahdni Chowk, Delhi out of the said properties. Learned counsel for the defendants has contended that these properties were the property of the defendants in their own right, same having not been derived out of the joint fund of the Joint Hindu Family of late Ram Niwas Gupta or from the funds of Ram Niwas Gupta. It was contended that the suit is an abuse of the process of law as during the life time of late Ram Niwas Gupta the father of the plaintiff Manmohan Gupta was not living with the family of Ram Niwas Gupta as per the registered will of Ram Niwas Gupta in favour of his wife Smt.Lilawati. It was further contended that in relation to the property bearing no.12, Sadhna Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi initially member of the society was Munna Lal Gupta, who was the husband of defendant no.7. Munna Lal Gupta transferred his share in the society in favour of Smt.Kapuri Devi and Smt.Kapuri Devi transferred the same in the name of Laxmi Narain Gupta, defendant no.1. It was further contented that similarly property bearing no.34, Sadhna Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi is the property belonging to the father of defendants 2 to 6, late Naval Kishore Gupta and the lease deed was also executed in favour of late Naval Kishore Gupta. It was also contended that shop at Chandni Chowk was purchased by Naval Kishore Gupta, father of defendants 2 to 6 in the year 1974. It was contended before me by learned counsel for the defendant that from bare, perusal of the Will it would be clear that it was only out of respect and reverence for his, father that the name of the firm was Ram Niwas Naval Kishore, although Ram Niwas had no role in the shop in question.

(3.) Controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant, counsel for the plaintiff has contended that share certificate in the name of Munna Lal Gupta was also to circumvent the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the money was paid out of the funds of family of Ram Niwas Gupta. It was also contended that it was simply a device to have the plot bearing no.12, Sadhna Enclave, Malviya Nagar, -Delhi in the name of family members as it would be evident from the share certificate that Munna Lal Gupta who sold his share on 2/12/1963 on the same day the share certificate was transferred in the name of Laxmi Narain Gupta, defendant no.1 from Smt.Kapuri Devi. Counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the house-tax was paid in relation to the property no.12, Sadhna Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi by the firm Laxmi Narain Ram Niwas vide document at page 88 of the paper-book. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also contended that no reliance can be placed on the registered Will as on the face of it is clear that the same has been only produced by the defendants during the currency of the present proceedings, although the alleged will is of November, 1967. It was further contended by counsel for the plaintiff that Ram Niwas Gupta died in August, 1967, although the Will has been registered in the month of November, 1967. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also contended that property no.34, Sadhna Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi was similarly purchased out of the funds of the joint family of Ram Niwas Gupta and, therefore, the plaintiff has got a share in the said property. Similar is the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff with regard to the shop at Chandni Chowk.