ASHOK GUPTA Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs claim to be the owner of property No.F-14/57A, Model Town, Part-II, Delhi-110009. The plot on which suit property is constructed alleged to have been purchased by Smt. Uma Rani, mother of the plaintiffs, from one Shri Dharam Vir vide registered sale deed dated 31st August, 1964. Shri Dharam Vir, in turn, had purchased this plot from Shri Sat Narain and Shri Arjun Dass vide sale deed dated 29.06.1960 and Shri Sat Narain and Shri Arjun Dass had purchased this plot from Shri Krishna Nand Fauk vide registered sale deed dated 13.03.1958. Shri Krishna Nand Fauk had purchased this property from Delhi Land Finance(DLF) vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.1956. It is alleged that Smt. Uma Rani, mother of the plaintiffs, raised construction after purchasing the aforesaid plot and got the property mutated in her name. Smt. Uma Rani expired on 23rd May, 2002. In her lifetime, she had bequeathed the suit property to the plaintiffs and their sister Smt. Anu Aron.

(2.) DEFENDANT No.1 ­ Shri Kishan Chand purporting to act as an attorney of Ashok Kumar executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 ­ Smt. Pushpa Gupta with respect to the aforesaid property on 5th March, 2008. The case of defendant No.3 in the written statement was that late Shri Krishna Nand Fauk had executed a Will bequeathing of his properties to defendant No.2- Shri Ashok Kumar and, therefore, the aforesaid property devolved on him after the death of Shri Krishna Nand Fauk. This was also her case that being the attorney of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 1 had sold the said property to her. The case of the plaintiffs, on the other hand, is that Shri Krishna Nand Fauk having already sold the aforesaid property to Shri Sat Narain and Shri Arjun Dass vide sale deed dated 13.03.1958, no right in the aforesaid property devolved on defendant No.2- Ashok Kumar, assuming that the Will purporting to be executed by late Shri Sat Narain and Shri Arjun Dass in his favour is a genuine Will executed by Shri Krishna Nand Fauk.

(3.) INITIALLY, the plaintiffs had filed the affidavits of plaintiff No.1 ­ Dr. Ashok Gupta but later they filed the affidavit of plaintiff No.2 ­ Shri Arun Gupta by way of ex-parte evidence. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs requests that affidavit of plaintiff No.2 ­ Shri Arun Gupta may be taken into consideration by the Court. In his affidavit by way of evidence, Dr. Arun Gupta has stated that plot in question was sold by DLF to Shri Krishna Nand Fauk vide registered sale deed EX.PW-1/2. Shri Krishna Nand Fauk further sold the plot to Shri Sat Narain and Shri Arjun Dass for a consideration of Rs.10,500/-, vide sale deed dated 13th March, 1958, which is Ex.PW-1/3. Shri Sat Narain and Shri Arjun Dass sold the aforesaid property to Shri Dharam Vir for a consideration of Rs.9,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 29.06.1960, which is Ex.PW-1/4. Shri Dharam Vir sold the property in question to their mother Smt. Uma Rani for a consideration of Rs.14,931/- vide Ex.PW-1/5. He has further stated that after purchasing the plot, the same was got mutated by their mother in her name with the MCD. According to him, after getting the plan sanctioned from the MCD, their mother raised construction over the property in question consisting of the ground floor, first floor and portion of the second floor and obtained Form ,,C Certificate (Ex. PW-1/7) dated 27.09.1965 and Form ,,D Certificate (Ex.PW-1/8) dated 26.12.1965. Ex.PW-1/9(Colly) are electricity bills for the period 1968-2011. They are all in the name of Smt. Uma Rani, mother of the plaintiffs whereas Ex.PW-1/10(Colly) are 77 water bills for the period 1972-2011 in her name. Ex.PW-1/11(Colly) are various telephone bills for the period 1978-2011. Ex.PW-1/13(Colly) are documents pertaining to levy and collection of property tax in respect of the suit property. A number of other documents has also been filed by the plaintiffs evidencing their possession of the suit property. Ex.PW-1/24 is the mutation order whereby the suit property was mutated in the name of the plaintiffs and their sister Smt. Anu Aron. Mr Arun Gupta has also stated that defendant No.2 had filed a probate petition seeking probate of the Will alleged to have been executed by Shri Krishna Nand Fauk in his favour was filed by defendant No. 2, but the suit property was not shown as one of the properties of Krishna Nand Fauk in that petition.