SWARAN KATYAL Vs. SURINDER PAL KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit for partition is filed by four plaintiffs with respect to the property bearing No.A-5, C.C. Colony, opposite Rana Pratap Bagh, on G.T. Road, in the revenue estate of village Rajpur Chhawani, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property?). Plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 4 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are daughters of late Sh. Ram Sahai Kapoor and late Smt. Satyawati Kapoor. Plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 are sons of late Sh. Ram Sahai Kapoor and late Smt. Satyawati Kapoor. The property is a building built on a plot of 321.25 sq. yds. Admittedly, the suit property was originally owned by Sh. Ram Sahai Kapoor who was the father of the parties. The suit property after the death of the father Sh. Ram Sahai Kapoor fell to the exclusive/sole ownership of the mother Smt. Satyawati Kapoor, and since this is an admitted position before me (as per the statement of the respective counsel), therefore, I am not giving other factual details as to how the mother Smt. Satyawati Kapoor became the sole owner of the suit property. Smt. Satyawati Kapoor died on 5.9.1998. In law, on Smt. Satyawati Kapoor dying intestate, all the parties would be equal coowners of the suit property, however, in the present case there are two aspects which can change this position. The first aspect is of Smt. Satyawati Kapoor having during her life-time executed and registered a sale deed dated 24.4.1990 in favour of the plaintiff No.1/Smt. Swaran Katyal with respect to front portion of first floor of the suit property. The second aspect is as to whether late Smt. Satyawati Kapoor had executed and registered the set of documents including the sale deed dated 12.8.1998 in favour of the defendant No.1 of the suit property. Therefore, if there is a valid sale deed dated 24.4.1990 in favour of the plaintiff No.1 of the front portion of first floor of the suit property, the property which would remain at the time of death of Smt. Satyawati Kapoor on 5.9.1998 would be the property less this front portion of first floor. Also, if the sale deed dated 12.8.1998 is found to have been duly executed by late Smt. Satyawati Kapoor in favour of the defendant No.1, then, there would be no estate of late Smt. Satyawati Kapoor for devolving on the parties to the suit. In sum and substance, this Court in order to decide the disputes in the present suit has to essentially examine the validity of the sale deeds dated 24.4.1990 (in favour of the plaintiff of the front portion of first floor) and 12.8.1998 (in favour of the defendant No.1 qua the entire suit property).

(2.) In view of crystallizing of the main disputes between the parties in terms of the aforesaid facts, I need not set out in detail the respective arguments made in the pleadings of the parties. Suffice to state that defendant No.1 challenges the sale deed dated 24.4.1990 in favour of the plaintiff No.1 qua the front portion of first floor as bogus whereas the plaintiffs challenge the sale deed dated 12.8.1998 in favour of the defendants no.1 as being null and void inasmuch as the same was obtained by fraud and/or when late Smt. Satyawati Kapoor was not in a position to understand or did not understand the nature of the documents on 12.8.1998. The plaintiffs also additionally plead the facts of lack of passing of consideration and the inadequacy of consideration as grounds to challenge the sale deed dated 12.8.1998 which is relied upon by the defendant No.1.

(3.) The following issues were framed in this suit on 8.10.2002:-