HARINDER PAL SINGH CHAWLA Vs. NIRMAL DENIERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Smt. Raj Chawla Sahni made a Will dated 13th May, 1984.She died on 5th June,1984. The Will is with respect to various assets of Smt.Sahni. One of the assets subject matter of the Will is property No.N-258, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi. The property is constructed on a freehold plot of land measuring 880 sq. yards.

(2.) The building consists of a two and half storey . structure. The present suit concerns only the ground floor of the said property. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 in the suit are the brothers of Mrs. Sahni while defendant No.l is her sister. Under the Will the ground floor has been completely and exclusively bequeathed in favour of defendant No.l. The upper half of the house has been bequeathed in favour of a brother of the deceased. Probate proceedings with respect to the said Will are pending in this Court. There is controversy between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 regarding the bequest of the upper portion of the property under the said Will. The basis of.the controversy is that while Mr.N.P.S.Chawla is a Doctor and resides in New Delhi, he has been referred to as Mr.N.P.S.Chawla residing at New York. The plaintiff in the suit is not a Doctor, but has been referred to as Dr.H.P.S.Chawla resident of New Delhi. It was actually the plaintiff who was at the relevant time resident of New York. Be that as it may, admittedly there is no controversy about execution of the Will and about the bequest of the ground floor of the property No.N-258, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi in favour of defendant No.l. It is this bequest alone which is relevant for purpose of the present suit.

(3.) Defendant No.l entered into an agreement to sell with respect to her portion of the property No.N-258, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi with defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 bad filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement in this Court being Suit No.3556 of 1991. On20thDecember,1991 parties arrived at a compromise in the said suit and in pursuance of the compromise, defendant No.l has to transfer the property to defendant No.3.