SWARAN LATA Vs. KULBHUSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of the learned Single Judge, whereby a suit for partition filed by sisters was dismissed. The orders of 19.04.2012 and 11.01.2013 reveal that the first three respondents (contesting parties in the suit) were served, despite which appearance had not been entered by them. The order of 11.01.2013 accordingly recorded that service was complete. It was in these circumstances that the appeal was heard finally and reserved for judgment. Before addressing the specifics of the properties involved in this partition suit, it is useful to record the family structure involved in this case.

(2.) The plaintiffs, three sisters filed the suit in 1990 [CS (OS) 2400/1990] against two brothers (the first two defendants/respondents) and two sisters (third and fourth defendants). A third brother, Sudarshan Lal, had died on 1st February, 1978, before the institution of the suit, as a bachelor. The family thus had consisted of five sisters and three brothers. Their father was Bakshi Ram, who died on 10th February, 1960, and their mother was Smt. Chanan Devi, who died on 3rd August, 1978. As regards Sudarshan Lal, the son of Madan Mohan Sharma, the second defendant, one Prem Prakash Sharma claimed that Lal had left a will in his favour, and that under the will so set up, any share in the property Lal had stood bequeathed to him. For this, he relied on Probate Case No. 34/1988, which he had filed before the institution of the present suit in respect of Lal's will. Although the probate case was decided in Prem Prakash Sharma's favour by an order dated 19th August, 2005 (the appeal against which, filed by Swaran Lata, as FAO(OS) 103/2005 was dismissed), the learned Single Judge by order dated 25th April, 2008 did not allow him (Prem Prakash Sharma) to be impleaded in the suit. However, the senior counsel for Prem Prakash Sharma was also heard by the Single Judge.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs was that prior to the partition, the late Bakshi Ram and his family were settled in a part of Punjab that is now in Pakistan. At the time, the family was a HUF and Bakshi Ram, as karta, was running various businesses (as a contractor, and running a petrol pump) at the time. These businesses, it is claimed, were being run under the name and style of "Bakshi Ram & Sons". It is alleged that after partition, Bakshi Ram alongwith his family shifted from Pakistan to India, and submitted his claims with the Ministry of Rehabilitation (in India) with regard to various assets and properties concerning his businesses and also houses and other property left behind by him in Pakistan. The name of the applicant was "Bakshi Ram & Sons", through Bakshi Ram as the karta, and the address mentioned was 16/229, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Thus, the plaintiff urged that the claim was made by the late Bakshi Ram as the karta on behalf of a HUF.