9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1930 - HC - Indian LawsEntitlement to be declared as owners of half portions of the property - preliminary decree of partition and thereafter the final decree of partition by metes and bounds - decree of permanent injunction - concealment of material fact and document - suit is hit by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC or not - principles of res judicata - suit been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction or not? - relief of declaration qua the property barred by limitation or not? Is the Will dated 5th December 2000 propounded by Defendant No. 1 genuine? - HELD THAT - The language in the Will is not of an illiterate person. Merely because punctuation such as comas have not been used cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that the Will is forged and fabricated particularly when the signatures of the deceased are not disputed and no evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to prove that blank signed documents were left by the deceased with the defendant No. 1 or his father and power of attorney executed in favour of the father of defendant No. 1 by the deceased is not disputed - Issue decided in favour of defendant No. 1 and against the plaintiffs. Have the Plaintiffs concealed any material fact and document and the effect thereof? - HELD THAT - From the evidence led by the defendant No. 1 it is proved that the plaintiffs first sought inheritance of the properties based on a purported Will dated 22nd December 2000 which never saw the light of the day in judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings and failing in the said attempt filed the present suit concealing about dismissal of the suit and other proceedings - Issue decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant No. 1. Is the suit hit by principles of res judicata? - HELD THAT - The previous suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed for want of requisite Court fees and for non-prosecution. The present suit cannot be dismissed being barred by res-judicata. Thus issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No. 1. Has the suit been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? - HELD THAT - Claim of defendant No. 1 in the written statement is that the plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs have undervalued the suit on the basis of valuation of circle rate given by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as 43, 000/- per sq. mtr. However it is the claim of the defendant No. 1 that the prevalent rate of West End properties is 5, 00, 000/- per sq.mtr. - Though claimed however no evidence has been led by defendant No. 1 on this count thus this issue is decided against defendant No. 1. Is the relief of declaration qua the property No. 510 Suryakiran Building Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi barred by limitation? - HELD THAT - The present suit was instituted on 21st May 2009. It is not denied by the plaintiffs that in the earlier suit written statement of the defendant No. 1 informed about the transfer of ownership of the property No. 510 Suryakiran Building Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi in his favour. Thus the period of limitation as contemplated to start from the date of knowledge would be the date of filing the written statement. Thus the present suit seeking the relief of declaration of ownership of the flat No. 510 Suryakiran Building Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi is beyond the period of limitation - decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant No. 1. Having held that the Will propounded by defendant No. 1 of late Rajendra Vikram Singh is a valid Will and that the relief of declaration sought in respect of property No. 501 Surya Kiran Building 19 Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi being beyond the period of limitation other issues are decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant No. 1. Suit dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of half portions of the property at B-10, West End, New Delhi. 2. Preliminary and final decree of partition by metes and bounds for the property at B-10, West End, New Delhi. 3. Permanent injunction for the property at B-10, West End, New Delhi. 4. Ownership of property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. 5. Decree for possession of property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. 6. Permanent injunction for property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. 7. Validity of the Will dated 5th December 2000. 8. Effect if the Will is found genuine. 9. Authorization of the plaint signing and verification. 10. Concealment of material facts and documents by the Plaintiffs. 11. Applicability of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC. 12. Suit barred by res judicata. 13. Proper valuation for court fee and jurisdiction. 14. Limitation for the relief of declaration for property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Detailed Analysis: Issue No. (vii): Validity of the Will dated 5th December 2000 The court examined the genuineness of the Will propounded by Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 presented the original Will and evidence from two attesting witnesses. The Plaintiffs objected, arguing the Will was unnatural and fabricated, citing harmonious relationships and suspect witnesses. However, the court found the objections insufficient to discredit the Will, noting no dispute on the deceased's signature or sound mind. The court concluded the Will was genuine. Issue No. (viii): Effect if the Will is found genuine Given the Will's validity, the court determined that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit due to the Will's provisions favoring Defendant No. 1. Issue No. (x): Concealment of material facts and documents by the Plaintiffs The court found that the Plaintiffs concealed material facts, including a purported Will dated 22nd December 2000, and failed to produce it in court. The Plaintiffs' actions amounted to fraud, impacting their credibility and claims. Issue No. (xii): Suit barred by res judicata The court held that the previous suit's dismissal for non-prosecution does not bar the present suit under res judicata principles. The earlier suit's dismissal was not on merits, allowing the current suit to proceed. Issue No. (xiii): Proper valuation for court fee and jurisdiction Defendant No. 1 claimed the suit was undervalued, but failed to provide evidence. The court decided this issue against Defendant No. 1, affirming the suit's valuation. Issue No. (xiv): Limitation for the relief of declaration for property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi The court found the suit for declaration of ownership of the property beyond the period of limitation, as the Plaintiffs were aware of the property's transfer to Defendant No. 1 in the earlier suit. Issues No. (i) to (vi): Ownership, partition, and injunction for properties Based on the Will's validity and the limitation finding, the court decided these issues against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to ownership, partition, or injunction for the properties in question. Conclusion: The suit was dismissed, with no costs awarded. The Will dated 5th December 2000 was upheld as genuine, and the Plaintiffs' claims were denied based on the Will and other findings.
|
