KISHAN LAL Vs. VEENA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Yet another instance of extreme supine negligence by a learned member of the Bar, bordering on professional misconduct, in respect of which conduct we find that the Bar Council of Delhi has taken cognizance of a complaint made by the appellant.

(2.) Veena Kumari, the plaintiff of the suit and the respondent in the appeal, is the wife of one Ramesh Kumar who is the brother of the appellant : Kishan Lal, impleaded as the defendant in the suit. As per Veena Kumari, the property bearing Municipal No.48, Block -D, Prashant Vihar, ad - measuring 80.78 square meters was owned by her father -in -law : late Sh.Bal Kishan. As per her, Bal Kishan had executed a will on December 26, 1991 bequeathing the property in favour of her husband Ramesh Kumar, and therefore on the death of Bal Kishan on June 23, 1996, her husband became the owner of the property. On the strength of the will, her husband sold the property to her and thus she became the owner of the property. As per her, late Shri Bal Kishan had permitted the appellant, being his son, to live on the first floor of the property as a licensee. We understand the pleading to mean that the possession was permissive without any consideration to be paid by the son to the father. Pleading further that after her father -in -law died, in view of the will dated December 26, 1991, her husband sold the property to her she pleaded that she revoked the permission granted by her father -in -law and called upon the appellant to vacate the premises in his possession and since he did not do so she was constrained to file the suit seeking possession and damages for unauthorized use and occupation.

(3.) Admitting the suit on December 23, 2009, summons were directed to be served upon Kishan Lal returnable for February 19, 2010, on which date the learned Judge being on leave, the Court Master adjourned the suit to May 12, 2010.