SURINDER KAUR Vs. RAM NARULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ia Nos. 4741 of 2009, 974 of 2010, 2020 of 2013 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) & IA No. 16878 of 2012 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

(2.) It is stated in the plaint that Mr. Ajit Singh Narula, deceased father of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and grandfather of Defendants 7 to 17, was a Hindu who was residing both in Delhi and in Bangkok where he carried on business. He had a vast estate comprising immoveable and moveable properties. It is stated that he made a Will bequeathing half of his estate to his son, Mr. Jai Singh Narula, Defendant No. 2 and the other half to his wife, Mrs. Jasbir Kaur. The Plaintiff claims that this was with the clear understanding that Mrs. Jasbir Kaur would make a bequest in favour of her six daughters.

(3.) Mr. Ajit Singh died in the year 1975. On the basis of the above Will, Mr. Jai Singh, Defendant No. 2 got the properties located in Bangkok and Mrs. Jasbir Kaur got the immoveable properties at Delhi, besides some agricultural land in Amritsar, and in District Sirsa in Haryana. It is stated that the immoveable properties in Delhi were in the joint ownership of Mrs. Jasbir Kaur and the co-sharers Defendant No. 2 and Defendant Nos. 30, 31, 33 and 34, who were sons of Mr. Mohar Singh, brother of Mr. Ajit Singh.