RAJIV SETH Vs. DAYA KISHAN MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications are inter-connected. IA. 11371/95 is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas IA.346/96 is filed by defendants 1 to 5 under Rule 4 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, both these applications are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Plaintiff Rajiv Seth is the son of pre-decesed dauther of Seth Munni Lal Mehra whereas defendants I to 4 arc the sons and defendant No.5 is the grandson of the said Scth Munni Lal Mehra. Plaintiff has come before the Court with the case that his grandfather Seth Munni Lal Mehra had died leaving behind him self- acquired properties consisting of moveables and iinmoveables, as mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint. It is his further allegation that defendants 1 to 5 have forged and fabricated the document dated 23.3.1993, purporting to be the last Will of his grandfather late Munni Lal Mehra. He has filed the present suit to get partition and separate possession of his 1 /24th share in the suit property. By filing 1A. 113 71 /95 he has sought ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants from transferring or creating am third party interest against the suit properties and on that application ex-parte order has been passed on 22.11.1995 as under:

(3.) Defendants 1 to 5 have appeared and have filed their reply to the said application and they have also filed IA.346/96. They contend that the claim of the plaintiff that they have fabricated a false Will is baseless and said Munni Lal Mehra was in fine health till he breathed his last and he had executed the Will of his own sweet Will. They further contend that Munni Lal Mehra had executed nomination record as there were fixed deposit receipts held by him w ith Punjab National Bank, Agra and the Bank of India, Agra, w ith M/s. Ashwini Kumar Mahindra and Ashok Gupta as attesting witnesses-on behalf of the former bank and Mrs. G. Mahindra on behalf of the latter bank. They further contend that plaintiff, his father and brother were amongst the . recipients ofthe largesse of the late Munni Lal Mehra as he had transferred certain fixed deposit receipts in their favour. They further contend that the properties referred to in para No. 2 of the plaint were not owned by Munni Lal Mehra and the properties at serial Nos. 1 to 3 are in the tenancy with Krishna Prasad Brothers and late Seth Munni Lal Mehra was not a partner of the said firm and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled _ to get any relief in respect ofthe same. They further contend that plaintiff has not given the description and details of the four bungalows and, therefore, the plaintiff's claim in respect of the same is also not tenable. As regards claim regarding properties in Amritsar and Bombay, it is contended that no property belonging to Munni Lal Mehra was lying in Amritsar or Bombay. They also contend that the claim ofthe plaintiff that Late Munni Lal Mehra was in possession of fixed deposits totalling rupees one crore in Punjab National . Bank, N.D.S.E., New Delhi and the Bank of India, New Agra Branch Agra, is false. The said Munni Lal , Mehra did not own any shares either in any company or M/s.K.P. Brothers P.Ltd. According to them, the plaintiff has obtained the order from the Court by making false representations as well as false claim and, therefore, the order of ad-interim injunction issued in favour ofthe plaintiff be vacated and the plaintiff's application be rejected.