SURINDER KAUR Vs. RAM NARULA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Surinder Kaur filed a suit being CS(OS) 651/2009 for declaration, partition, injunction, rendition of accounts in respect of the estate of late Smt.Jasbir Kaur. Mrs.Jasbir Kaur died leaving behind one son Jai Singh defendant No.2 and six daughters including the plaintiff Surinder Kaur. The other 5 daughters Sukhvinder Pal Kaur, Simrat Kaur, Rajinder Pal Kaur and Harsharon Kaur were impleaded as D -3, D -4, D -5 and D -6. The sixth daughter Smt.Avninder Kaur has since passed away, thus her legal heirs were impleaded as defendant No.7 to 17. Son of defendant No.2 i.e. Ram Narula was also impleaded as defendant No.1. Surinder Kaur claimed that Ajit Singh her father died in the year 1975 leaving behind assets, immovable and movable properties. Vide his Will he bequeathed half of his estate to defendant No.2 his son and other half to Smt.Jasbir Kaur his wife with the declared understanding that Jasbir Kaur would make a bequest in favour of her six daughters. Thus, Jai Singh who was living in Bangkok got properties and assets located at Bangkok whereas Smt.Jasbir Kaur who was living in Delhi got immovable properties at Delhi besides agriculture land in village Amritsar, District Sirsa etc. Smt.Jasbir Kaur made a Will dated November 03, 1989 bequeathing her estate to her six daughters and her son in following manner:

(2.) After demise of Smt.Jasbir Kaur, Jai Singh defendant No.2 disclaimed succession for himself in the estate of Jasbir Kaur for the reason he had already been given the Lion's share and with the assurance that the estate of Jasbir Kaur would come to the six sisters. Jai Singh assured that since some immovable properties were jointly with the son of Shri Mohar Singh, the brother of Shri Ajit Singh Narula, he would ensure that they are disposed of and the share given to the sisters. Since no action was taken by Jai Singh despite passage of time, the daughters of Jasbir Kaur became suspicious. When Surinder Kaur and her sisters checked they found that Jai Singh had got mutated the name of his son Ram Narula defendant No.1 in place of Smt.Jagir Kaur in the municipal records in respect of immovable properties at Delhi. On the complaints made Shri Rajveer Singh Dahiya, Assistant Collector vide order dated August 03, 2001 withdrew/ cancelled mutation dated June 11, 1998 in respect of property No.15A/2, 3, 4 and 12A/1 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi and property No.10197 Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh.

(3.) Plaintiff along with her sisters defendant No.2 and 4 preferred probate petition No.206/2001 in the Court of District Judge, Delhi impleading defendant No.2 and other sisters Rajinder Pal Kaur, Smt.Harsharon Kaur as defendant No.5 and 6 and the legal heirs of Smt.Arvinder Kaur i.e. defendant No.7 to 17. Jai Singh appeared in the probate petition and filed the preliminary objection stating that the petition was barred by limitation and that by the Will dated January 14, 1996 Smt.Jasbir Kaur bequeathed all her properties in India and Thailand to her grand -son Ram Narula i.e. defendant No.1 on the basis of which mutations were affected. However, no copy of the Will dated January 14, 1996 was filed. On further search the plaintiff and her sisters who are residents of Bangkok found the following fraud practised on them: