CHITRALEKHA BUKSHI Vs. ABHAY SAPRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the amendment of the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/ defendant is aggrieved by the said amendment and, therefore, this appeal.

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge in this appeal, we may have a quick glance to the facts of this case. Lt. General B.M. Kaul was the owner of plot No. 16, Block-A admeasuring 1205 sq. yds. situated at Villages Basant Nagar and Mohammadpur, Munirka (Zone F6) now known as Westend. Lt. General B.M. Kaul built a house on the said land of which he was the exclusive owner. The house in question was built in the year 1968. Lt. General B.M. Kaul died on 18.4.1972. It is alleged that he died intestate. After his death the property in question was mutated with the DDA in the name of his wife Smt. D.K. Kaul, and in the name of his two daughters, Smt. Anuradha Sapru and Smt. Chitralekha Bukshi. They were the only legal heirs left by Lt. General B.M. Kaul. It is further alleged that on the basis of the representation made by the legal heirs of late Lt. General B.M. Kaul, DDA, Co- operative Societies Cell, transferred the leasehold right of the said land in the names of Smt. D.K. Kaul, Smt. Anuradha Sapru and Smt. Chitralekha Bukshi. This was done in the year 1979. Each one of them became entitled to 1 /3rd share in the said property. It is further alleged that in the year 1985 Smt. D.K. Kaul and Smt. Anuradha Sapru (defendant No. 2) nominated the plaintiff as their nominee for their respective 1/3rd share in the suit property. Smt. D.K. Kaul died intestate on 25.11.1993. According to plaintiff he became owner of l/3rd share in the property belonging to Smt. D.K. Kaul being her nominee. Plaintiff requested the society to substitute his name in place of late Smt. D.K. Kaul, but the society vide its letter dated 24.4.1996 refused to accede to his request. Aggrieved by that order coupled with the fact that defendant No. 1 Smt. Chitralekha Bukshi the present appellant wrote to the DDA to mutate the share in the property of her mother in her name. Plaintiff objected to the request of appellant. When his grievances were not met by the concerned authority he filed the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by the present appellant/defendant No. 1, inter alia, on the ground that Lt. Gen. B.M. Kaul died intestate leaving behind his widow and two daughters who were entitled to l/3rd share each in the property in question. That by alleged nomination of late Mrs. D.K. Kaul neither plaintiff acquired any right in the property nor on the basis of alleged nomination plaintiff became owner of 1 /3rd share left by late Mrs. Kaul. Reliance on alleged family settlement is misplaced. Issues were framed. When the suit was at the stage of recording of the evidence, the plaintiff filed the application seeking amendment of the plaint. By the impugned order dated 18.4.2002 the Court allowed the amendment. The present appeal has been preferred primiarily on the ground that having admitted throughout that Lt. General B.M. Kaul died intestate, now setting up of a Will after almost 30 years the plaintiff is setting up a new case.