YOG RAJ PURI Vs. YOGESHWAR RAJ PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the above mentioned application succinctly are that Col. M. L. Puri, who was father of the plaintiff-Sh. Yog Raj Puri, defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6, namely, Lt. Col. Yogishwar Raj Puri, Sh. Yugal Raj Pri, Smt. Laila Devi Dewan and Smt. Primla Devi Dewan and was grandfather of defendants 3 and 4, who are minor children of Col. Yadav Raj Puri and grand maternal father of Smt. Padma Devi, who is daughter of Smt. Sushila Devi, deceased daughter of Col. M. L. Puri, died on 24th April, 1949, leaving behind his widow Smt. Chanan Devi and his sons and daughters mentioned above as his legal heirs. Col. Puri owned a large number of stocks and shares and other securities and was operating several accounts with various banks, some of the accounts being jointly in his name and his wife Smt. Chanan Devi or one or other of his sons. The accounts which Col. Puri had in the joint names of himself and one or other on his sons/wife were payable to "either or surviver". On the death of Col. Puri the securities and shares held in his personal account as also in his account jointly with his wife Smt. Chanan Devi were transferred in the name of his wife by the bank concerned viz. Allahabad Bank Limited defendant No. 8. Smt. Chanan Devi died on 22nd Sep., 1961, leaving behind her sons and daughters etc. as mentioned above as her heirs. She also had a locker with Punjab National Bank defendant No. 9 which was in the joint name of herself and defendant No. 1. Further she had some account with defendant No. 8 in her personal name as well as in the joint names of herself and defendant No. 1/herself and defendant No. 2.

(2.) On 16th Oct., 1961, the plaintiff instituted this suit in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, which was registered as Suit No. 460/61. He claimed l/7th share in the moveable assets owned by his deceased mother and asked for partition thereof. He also required defendants 1 and 2 to render account of the joint accounts of the mother with defendant No. 8 as also joint locker of the deceased with defendant No. 9. Thus, he claimed a decree for his share in the shares, securities and moneys belonging to his mother with costs. It was, inter alia, averred that taking advantage of their joint names in the aforesaid accounts and in the locker, defendants 1 and 2 had illegally and without the knowledge of the plaintiff had misused/ misappropriated the same by obtaining signatures of their mother on blank cheques etc. However, he sought amendment of the plaint which was allowed vide order dated 8th Jan., 1963, subject to payment of costs and he filed his first amended plaint dated 18th Jan., 1963 on 22nd Jan., 1963. In the amended plaint the plaintiff took up the stand that Col. Puri used to operate and maintain accounts in his own name and in joint names of himself and one or other of his sons and his wife. However, the proprietary rights in the moneys and the securities held in all such accounts were that of Col. Puri only and the persons as joint operators of the accounts had no ownership rights therein. Thus, on the death of Col. Puri the same devolved upon the sons and widow of Col. Puri in equal shares. He claimed that be had 8/35th share in the assets left by his father Col. Puri and his mother Smt. Chanan Devi and asked for division of the same. Still later he moved yet another application sometime in 1968 and the same was allowed vide order dated 23rd March, 1968 and he put in second amended plaint dated 23rd March, 1968, claiming l/4th share in the shares, securities and other assets of his deceased father. While re-stating that on the death of Col. Puri his assets including the shares, securities and the accounts devolved upon his sons and widow in equal shares and reiterating that Smt. Chanan Devi died on 22nd Sep., 1961, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 as her legal heirs, he asserted that he had l/4th share in all those assets, shares, securities and moneys etc. of Col. M. L. Puri and Smt. Chanan Devi Puri. Thus, he seeks to exclude the daughters of the deceased from inheritance of both his parents.

(3.) The evidence of the plaintiff in the affirmative concluded on 25th Apr., 1968 and evidence of the defendants concluded on 1st Aug., 1969. Thereafter, rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff was recorded in part when the parties agreed to refer the disputes to the sole arbitration of Shri Bhim Sen Sachar by mutual consent. However, it appears that the reference was subsequently revoked. In 1973 the suit was transferred to this Court on the original side and it dragged on its dreary course without any progress till 1976 when the plaintiff moved yet another application (I. A. 1552/76) for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the plea of res judicata pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in his favour in another suit being Suit No. 350/62. It may be pertinent to add here that on an application having been made in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Mahasu (Himachal Pradesh) for the grant of succession certificate with regard to certain moveable assets of late Col. Puri, succession certificate was granted to defendant No. 1 to administer the estate by mutual consent of the parties on 13th Nov., 1949. However, on 27th Nov., 1961 the plaintiff instituted Suit No. 350/62 against defendants 1 to 7 therein claiming l/4th share in the properties which were the subject-matter of the succession certificate, the other co-sharers being defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 and predecessor-in-interest of defendants 3 and 4, in equal shares. A preliminary decree for accounts regarding the moveable assets of the deceased (Col. M. L. Puri) covered by succession certificate granted by Mahasu Court was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 1, the share of the plaintiff having been fixed at l/4th. Thus, the plaintiff sought to incorporate the plea of res judicata. However, the same was disallowed vide detailed order dated 6th May, 1977 of Chadha, J. Thereafter, the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with the remaining rebuttal evidence vide order dated 9th Aug., 1977 of R. N. Aggarwal, J. It would, however, appear that when it was about to conclude the plaintiff moved an application under 0. 18, R. 17-A read with S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), (I. A. 3223/79) for permission to lead additional evidence in affirmative. However, the same was turned down vide order dated 6th Nov., 1979 of Goswamy, J. Not deterred by the same, the plaintiff moved an application, being I. A. 3673/79, for review of the said order. However, he met with no success.