PREM KUMAR Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against thejudgment and decree dated 4.2.1976 passed by Shri Jaspal Singh, AdditionalDistrict Judge, Delhi (as he then was) whereby he has allowed the appeal andset aside the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1974 passed by Shri GopalKrishan, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi and dismissed the suit.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declatation to the effect thatthe property No. WZ-61, Mahabir Nagar. New Delhi vested in the entirebody of legal heirs of deceased, Shri Malik Chand. He claimed that theplaintiff and defendants 1, 3 to 5 are the children of Shri Malik Chand anddefendant No. 2 is his widow. The plaintiff's father Shri Malik Chand hadpurchased one plot of land No. 47, 'measuring 200 sq. yards in MahabirNagar, New Delhi in the benami name of defendant No. 1, i.e., Shri VedParkash, out of his own earnings and thereafter constructed a house thereonbearing the aforementioned house No. WZ-61 and also enjoyed the profitsthereof throughout his life. Defendant No. 1 is not the real owner of theproperty as he could not purchase the plot and raised construction thereon.In the year 1954, when the plot m question was purchased and constructionraised thereon, defendant No. 1 was only a student, and had no source ofincome and was only a minor of 13 years. Since Shri Malik Chand had diedwithout a Will, the plaintiff along with the defendants had become jointowners as the legal heirs of said Shri Malik Chand and defendant No. 1exclusively could not be the owner of the property.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 contested this suit and denied that his father hadpurchased the plot or raised constructions thereon from his own earnings.According to him, the plot was purchased by him from his own savings andconstruction had been raised thereon by him with the assistance of his lateuncle Shri Wazir Chand, who was issueless. Being the eldest child of hisparents and his uncle being issueless, defendant No. 1 used to get pocketmoney from his parents and uncle and from those savings he purchased theplot and raised construction thereon. Defendants 2 to 5 supported the caseof the plaintiff.