PAMELA V SABHARWAL Vs. DAYAL S BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Pamela Sabharwal is the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 6 are the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff. Shri S D Bhatia was the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. He died on 17/1/1969. Before his death Shri S D Bhatia is alleged to have retired as an Executive Engineer with Western Command and had acquired plot no. 36/27 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi on 99 years lease by a registered document. When S D Bhatia died defendants 1 to 4 and 5 were married. After the death of S D Bhatia his widow and plaintiff were living together and plaintiff was looking after her mother. Plaintiff was married on 28/9/1987. After marriage the plaintiff's mother started living abroad.

(2.) It is asserted by the plaintiff that it was represented to her that the father had died intestate and relinquishement deed was obtained from the plaintiff and other heirs. The same had been executed on the said misrepresentation that the deceased father of the plaintiff had not left behind any will. In the year 1992 while going through the files, the plaintiff came across a will of 12/7/1965 duly executed by Shri S D Bhatia, father of the plaintiff. She contacted defendant no.1 who informed the plaintiff that at the time of the death since the plaintiff was unmarried, therefore, she was not informed of the will. By virtue of the said will half of the property has been bequeathed to the plaintiff and the other half to defendant no.1. Plaintiff claims that the relinquishement deed has been obtained by misrepresentation and accordingly the civil suit has been filed for partition of the house no. 36/26 East Patel Nagar and for a declaration declaring the relinquishement of 5/2/1969 to have been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff without due process of law.

(3.) Detailed written statement had been filed by defendant no. 1 and by defendant no.2. They denied that there was any misrepresentation or will. It becomes unnecessary to mention the other details because subsequently defendants 1 and 2 had been proceeded ex parte. Ex parte evidence had been led by filing of the affidavits of the plaintiff and the witnesses.