* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 46/1982
Reserved on : 04.12.2009
Pronounced on: 23.12.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :
PT. DEBI CHARAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. M. Tarique Siddiqui, Advocate with
Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate
versus
PT. DURGA PRASAD (DECEASED) THROUGH LR ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated
02.12.1981 passed by the trial court in a suit instituted by their
predecessor-in-interest, Late Pt. Debi Charan, for declaration and
permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the learned ADJ.
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 1 of 21
2. The history of this case has its seeds in the early Twentieth
Century, when the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, one Pt.
Jasanji Maharaj used to practice in Delhi as a famous Vaid and
alongside, carried on the business of money lending against pledge of
jewellery. Pt. Jasanji Maharaj had one son by the name of Pt. Vidhya
Dhar, who, upon the demise of his father, inherited all the immovable
property, jewellery, cash etc. Pt. Vidhya Dhar also practiced as a Vaid
and continued his father‟s money lending business. He had one
daughter by the name of Meero Devi, who was married to one Shri
Prahlad Missar. As Pt.Vidhya Dhar did not have any male issue, he
adopted Pt. Shyam Lal as his son. Pt. Shyam Lal got married to Jog
Maya. While Pt. Sham Lal died issueless in or around the year 1913,
Smt. Meero Devi expired five years thereafter, in the early part of the
year 1918.
3. It is the case of Pt. Debi Charan, plaintiff in the suit, that to
perpetuate the name of the family, Pt. Vidhya Dhar got Smt. Jog Maya
to adopt the plaintiff in June 1918. Pt. Vidhya Dhar expired in or
around the later part of the year 1918. As per the plaintiff, Pt. Vidhya
Dhar left behind ancestral immovable property, cash, jewellery and
other valuable assets and his money lending business and prior to his
death, he had executed a Will dated 25.07.1918. Under the said Will,
Shri Prahlad Missar, son-in-law of Pt. Vidhya Dhar and Smt. Jog Maya,
mother of the plaintiff, were appointed as his guardians to manage the
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 2 of 21
estate of the executant. Upon the demise of Pt. Vidhya Dhar, Shri
Prahlad Missar and Smt. Jog Maya took over the control and
management of the entire estate and continued to carry on the money
lending business. Pt. Prahlad Missar expired on 29.4.1930. Vide order
dated 13.10.1930, the learned Sub-Judge, Delhi, granted a succession
certificate in the estate of Shri Prahlad Missar to the plaintiff, Pt. Debi
Charan. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that a sum of Rs.5,000/-
was realized by him by virtue of the succession certificate and was
handed over to Smt. Jog Maya with whom, he was residing.
4. The plaintiff got married in the year 1932 and continued to
live with his mother, Smt. Jog Maya. On 08.10.1933, Smt. Jog Maya
purchased a house bearing No. 667 (old), 1243/1247 (new) situated in
Nahar Saadat Khan, Rang Mahal, Queens Road, Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as „the suit property‟) by virtue of a sale deed dated
08.10.1933, duly registered on 27.10.1933. The plaintiff contended
that the said property was purchased by Smt. Jog Maya out of the
ancestral funds in her hands. As per the averments made in the
plaint, in or around the year 1935, Smt. Jog Maya fell into the grips of
some interested persons, who had an eye on the family assets and
while the plaintiff was away to Calcutta in connection with his
business, she was made to shift to the suit property.
5. The plaintiff contended that at the instigation of certain
interested persons, in the year 1935, Smt. Jog Maya instituted a suit
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 3 of 21
for possession, declaration and permanent injunction against him,
registered as Suit No. 227/1935. The said suit was contested by the
plaintiff and was ultimately compromised on 20.07.1936. As per the
plaintiff, under the compromise, Smt. Jog Maya gave up her claim to
the suit properties. The suit properties have been detailed in para 13
of the plaint as houses No. 1096 and 1097, Sat Gharan Gali Anar,
Delhi. Smt. Jog Maya also agreed to accept from the plaintiff, a sum
of Rs.10/- per month towards maintenance allowance, which was to be
a charge on the plaintiff‟s property. The plaintiff claimed that he
continued to pay maintenance allowance to Smt. Jog Maya in terms of
the compromise till her demise on 22.10.1955.
6. It is relevant to note that upon the demise of Smt. Jog
Maya, defendant No. 1, Pt. Durga Prasad (respondent in the present
appeal), filed a Probate Petition in respect of the Will dated 01.07.1947
executed by Smt. Jog Maya. The Probate Court granted probate of the
aforesaid Will vide order dated 02.12.1963, which was challenged in
the superior court. Finally, the Supreme Court in Special Leave Appeal
No.65/1969 passed an order dated 19.09.1978, holding the Will dated
01.07.1947 executed by Smt. Jog Maya to be a validly executed Will.
7. In para 25 of the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that the cause
of action for instituting the suit against the defendants arose on
01.07.1947, when a Will dated 01.07.1947 was propounded by
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 4 of 21
defendant No.1/respondent, Pt. Durga Parshad as having been
executed by Smt. Jog Maya. He further stated that the cause of action
arose on 22.10.1955, when Smt. Jog Maya expired and defendant
No.1/respondent started interfering with the rights of the plaintiff in
the suit properties.
8. In the suit instituted by Shri Debi Charan, the predecessor-
in-interest of the appellants against Pt. Durga Parshad as defendant
No.1 National Bank of India Ltd. as defendant No.2 and eight other
parties who were tenants in the suit property as defendants No.3 to
10, he sought the following reliefs :
“27. The plaintiff prays:-
(a) for declaration
(i) that he is the exclusive owner of house No.
1243/1247, situate in Nahar Saadat Khan, Rang
Mahal, Queen‟s Road, Delhi;
(ii) that he is entitled to the deposits in the name
of Smt. Jog Maya with the National Bank of India
Ltd., Delhi, defendant No. 2;
(iii) that the will dated 01.07.1947 alleged to
have been made by Smt. Jog Maya deceased is
void, ineffective and inoperative and does not
affect the plaintiff‟s rights;
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the
defendant No. 1 from interfering with the
plaintiff‟s rights and defendant No.2 from
delivering the deposits and other valuables for
safe custody with them in the name of Smt. Jog
Maya, and restraining defendants No. 3 to 10
from paying any rent to defendant No. 1 and
restraining defendant No. 1 from receiving theRFA No. 46/1982 Page 5 of 21
deposits and other valuables in the name of Smt.
Jog Maya from defendant No. 2 and the rent
from defendants No. 2 to 10; and
(c) Costs of the suit.”
9. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1/respondent
who filed his written statement. Apart from the various preliminary
objections taken by him as to the maintainability of the suit, on merits
defendant No.1 claimed that Smt. Jog Maya had purchased the suit
property from her own funds as istridhan and the same was not an
ancestral property as claimed by the plaintiff, that the jewellery items
belonged to her as istridhan, that Smt. Jog Maya had executed a Will
in his favour which had been upheld as legal and valid upto the
Supreme Court and was binding on the plaintiff, and that as the suit
property was in possession of defendant No.1, a suit for declaration
alone was not maintainable. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial
court framed the following issues on 21.08.1957:-
1. Is the plaintiff adopted son of Shri Sham Lal?
2. Was not the Will revoked by Smt. Jog Maya?
3. Did Smt. Jog Maya execute the will in favour
of the defendant?
4. Relief.
10. After the Will of Smt. Jog Maya dated 01.07.1947 was held
to be a validly executed document by the Probate Court vide order
dated 02.12.1963, the plaintiff filed an application for framing
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 6 of 21
additional issues, which was decided on 31.10.1979 and the following
three additional issues were framed:-
1. Whether the property No. 1243/1247, Rang
Mahal, Queens Road was purchased by Smt. Jog
Maya from ancestral funds? OPP
2. Whether the cash and jewellery etc. deposited
by Smt. Jog Maya in the National Bank were
ancestral properties? OPP
3. Whether the suit is properly valued for
purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction? OPP
11. Vide order dated 31.10.1979, it was observed by the trial
court that keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court of India
dated 19.09.1978, in respect of the Will of Smt. Jog Maya, issues No.
2 and 3 framed on 21.08.1957 were struck off as having become
redundant. The third additional issue framed on 31.10.1979
pertaining to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and
jurisdiction was treated as a preliminary issue. The learned Sub Judge
Ist-Class, passed an order dated 03.12.1979 holding that the valuation
of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction was more than Rs.25,000/-
and less than Rs.50,000/- and as such, the plaint was directed to be
returned to be presented before the court having appropriate
jurisdiction. Consequently, the said suit was placed before the learned
ADJ on 11.12.1979, for disposal.
12. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the
respondent/defendant No. 1 moved two other applications. The first
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 7 of 21
application was filed under Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to
further cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. The second
application was filed under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for
amendment of the written statement with a view to include two
preliminary objections. Both the aforesaid applications filed by the
respondent/defendant No. 1 were allowed vide order dated 29.07.1980
and the amended written statement was permitted to be taken on
record and the plaintiff filed a replication to the amended written
statement. On the basis of the fresh pleadings, another additional
issue was framed on 17.09.1980, which reads as below:-
1. Whether the plaintiff could raise pleas of title
in the Probate Court, as alleged by the
defendant? OPD
13. On 20.03.1979, the plaintiff, Pt. Debi Charan expired and
his son, Shri Raminder Kumar was impleaded as his legal heir. After
the parties led oral and documentary evidence and addressed their
respective arguments, the learned ADJ decided the suit by passing the
impugned judgment dated 02.12.1981 whereunder, the suit filed by
the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was dismissed while
leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
dismissal order, the present appeal was filed on 17.02.1982.
14. The present appeal was admitted vide order dated
24.02.1982. Vide order dated 18.03.1982, the names of respondents
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 8 of 21
No. 2 to 10 were struck off in view of the submission made on behalf
of the appellants that they were not necessary parties. During the
pendency of the present appeal, Pt. Durga Prasad, the
respondent/defendant No. 1, expired and his legal heirs were
permitted to be brought on record. As they did not appear even after
substituted service through citation issued in the newspaper, vide
order dated 22.01.2002, they were proceeded against ex parte.
During the pendency of the present appeal on 16.01.2003, Shri
Raminder Kumar Sharma, legal heir of Lt. Pt. Debi Charan expired and
vide order dated 21.03.2006, his legal heirs, the present appellants,
were brought on the record and the amended memo of parties was
also permitted to be taken on record. Thereafter, the appeal came up
for hearing on 31.01.2007. As none appeared on behalf of the
appellants, the same was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
Later on, on an application filed by the appellants, the order dated
31.01.2007 was recalled and the appeal was restored to its original
position. The appeal again came to be dismissed for non-prosecution
vide order dated 29.08.2008. The appellants filed yet another
application for restoration of the appeal. Vide order dated 30.11.2009,
the application for restoration of the appeal was allowed and the
appeal was restored to its original position. On the same date, counsel
for the appellants stated that the appeal paper book had been filed
and hence, the trial court record may not be re-summoned.
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 9 of 21
Arguments were therefore addressed on the basis of the appeal paper
book.
15. Counsel for the appellants confined his arguments in the
present appeal to the findings returned by the trial court in respect of
additional issues No. 1 and 2 framed on 31.10.1979, pertaining to
whether the suit property and the cash and jewellery, etc., deposited
by Smt. Jog Maya in the National Bank of India Ltd., were ancestral
properties or not.
16. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court
ought to have held that the suit property was purchased by Smt.Jog
Maya, out of the ancestral funds in her hands and thus belonged to Pt.
Debi Charan. He further stated that the trial court erred in discarding
the evidence of nine witnesses (PW-1 to PW-9) produced by the
plaintiff regarding purchase of the suit property with ancestral funds in
the hands of Smt. Jog Maya and belonging to Pt. Debi Charan. It was
also contended that the trial court fell in error in rejecting the evidence
of PW-10, Sh. Dhakkan Lal Sharma who had deposed that the suit
property was purchased by Smt. Jog Maya with ancestral funds of Pt.
Sham Lal and Pt. Debi Charan. It was canvassed that the trial court
drew a wrong inference from the documentary evidence produced by
the defendant, namely, will of Pt. Vidhya Dhar (Ex.DW-2/2),
Relinquishment Deed executed by Pt. Debi Charan (DW-2/1), Will of
Smt. Jog Maya (Ex. DW2/4) and the testimony of DW-1, Durga
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 10 of 21
Pershad.
17. Counsel for the appellant also sought to emphasis the
averments made in para 14 of the plaint to state that under the
compromise arrived at between Smt.Jog Maya and the plaintiff, she
gave up her claim to “the said property” and agreed to accept from the
plaintiff, a sum of Rs.10 per month as maintenance allowance. It was
urged that the “said property” as mentioned in the aforesaid para of
the plaint was in fact the suit property.
18. I have heard the counsel for the appellant who has taken
me through the relevant documents and the oral testimony of certain
material witnesses, particularly PW-10 and DW-1. I have also
carefully perused the impugned judgment. It is pertinent to note that
by the time the additional issues No.1 & 2 were framed on
31.10.1979, the evidence of nine of the plaintiff‟s witnesses (PW-1 to
PW-9) had already been recorded. The learned ADJ noticed that
though the defendant No.1/respondent did ask for cross-examining the
plaintiff‟s witnesses, which was allowed, he did not take any steps for
summoning any of them. Rather, he expressed his inability to do so
on the ground that the correct addresses had not been mentioned by
the plaintiff, who was called upon to give their better particulars.
Counsel for the plaintiff expressed his inability to furnish the correct
addresses of the said witnesses and stated that they were of advanced
age and that the plaintiff was unaware as to whether any of them were
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 11 of 21
alive. Consequently, none of the witnesses of the plaintiff were
summoned or cross-examined by the defendant No.1 despite an
opportunity granted for this purpose. However, the defendant No.1
was allowed to re-examine himself and to produce witnesses on the
subject matter of the two additional issues.
19. After taking note of the aforesaid position, the trial court
proceeded to examine and analyze the statements of the witnesses as
existing on the record, to see whether the plaintiff could seek any help
from their testimony to discharge the onus placed on him in respect of
the two issues. After carefully perusing the testimony of the aforesaid
witnesses, the trial court concluded that none of them were able to
give the correct particulars of the cash and jewellery which the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, Pt. Vidhya Dhar left behind
and that they did not appear to have any personal knowledge of the
actual assets held by him during his lifetime.
20. The trial court further observed that besides the oral
testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, the plaintiff had not produced
any documentary evidence to establish that he was in possession of
the ancestral property which was in the name of Smt. Jog Maya and
was in a position to invest and purchase the suit property. The trial
court carefully examined the testimony of the star witness of the
plaintiff, Sh. Dhakkan Lal Sharma (PW-10) and concluded that the said
witness knew nothing about the assets left behind by Pt. Vidhya Dhar
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 12 of 21
either in cash or in the form of jewellery and that the said witness was
ordinarily a resident of Bulandshaher and was unable to convey even
the date, month or year in which Smt.Jog Maya had allegedly
purchased the suit property, on the particulars of the party from whom
the property was purchased and the sale price thereof. The testimony
of PW-10 that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the plaintiff in cash to
Smt.Jog Maya after getting the succession certificate in respect of the
estate of Lt. Prahlad Missar was disbelieved by the court below on the
ground that the said witness was unable to state the date and the
particulars of the parties in whose presence the said amount was given
and for the reason that he was himself not present at the time of
payment of the amount. The trial court went a step further and
observed that even if it was accepted that the amount was given by
the plaintiff to Smt.Jog Maya, the same could not be treated as
ancestral funds in the hands of Pt.Debi Charan and could not be
connected with the ancestral properties.
21. Juxtaposed against the aforesaid testimony of the witnesses
produced by the plaintiff, was the testimony of defendant No.1/
respondent (DW-1) and the documentary evidence produced by him,
which was carefully scrutinized by the trial court. The three important
documents produced by defendant No.1/respondent included the Will
executed by Smt. Jog Maya in his favour (Ex.DW-2/4), the Will
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 13 of 21
executed by Late Pt. Vidhya Dhar (Ex.DW-2/2) and the Relinquishment
Deed executed by the plaintiff, Pt. Debi Charan (Ex.DW-2/1).
22. The learned ADJ noted in the impugned judgment that in
her Will, Smt. Jog Maya had stated that the suit property was acquired
by her out of her funds consisting of her istridhan and by sale of her
jewellery. Counsel for the appellants was unable to show from the
records, any rebuttal on the part of the plaintiff in respect of the
aforesaid assertion of Smt. Jog Maya in her Will. The second
documentary evidence was the duly registered Will of Pt. Vidhya Dhar.
A perusal of the aforesaid document shows that apart from making a
passing reference to “cash, jewellery and domestic articles”, the
testator made no mention about the details of the cash or the
quantities/value of the jewellery. In contrast, a specific reference was
made by Pt. Vidhya Dhar to two houses purchased by his deceased
father Pt. Jasanji Maharaj, situated in Gali Anar, Delhi. The learned
ADJ cannot be faulted in his observation that the aforesaid document
could not be a basis to conclude the exact value of the jewellery and
cash left behind by Pt. Vidhya Dhar, so as to support the plaintiff‟s
case. The third relevant document was the Relinquishment Deed
executed by the plaintiff, Pt. Debi Charan himself by which, he
relinquished his rights in respect of the two houses situated in Gali
Anar in favour of Smt. Jog Maya. In the said Relinquishment Deed
also, there was no mention of any cash/jewellery left behind by Pt.
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 14 of 21
Vidhya Dhar, to enable the plaintiff to seek any benefit therefrom to
fortify his case.
23. Insofar as the oral testimony of defendant No.1/respondent
is concerned, I have carefully perused the same and find that the
plaintiff was unable to shake the said witness, who categorically
asserted that Smt. Jog Maya was not in possession of any ancestral
property besides the suit property, which had been purchased by her
from her own funds. It was further asserted by DW-1 that no part of
the deposits made by her with the defendant No.2/bank was out of the
funds of Late Pt. Vidhya Dhar and the suit property was purchased by
Smt. Jog Maya out of the funds of her istridhan. He reiterated that
neither the immovable nor the movable assets of Pt. Vidhya Dhar were
invested in the suit property. He further stated that the present suit
was filed by the plaintiff only after the probate proceedings were
initiated by defendant No.1/respondent in respect of the Will of Smt.
Jog Maya, executed in his favour. The said witness also asserted that
he performed the last rites of Smt. Jog Maya but the plaintiff did not
attend the ceremony. A perusal of the record shows that the
aforesaid witness was cross-examined at length by the plaintiff but
nothing relevant could be elicited from the said witness, who stood by
his stand that the suit property was not purchased by Smt. Jog Maya
with the ancestral funds in her hands and that the deposits in her
name with defendant No.2/bank had also not been acquired from
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 15 of 21
ancestral funds. The trial court found the testimony of the aforesaid
witness as reliable and worthy of being acted upon. This Court finds
no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the trial court. As
against the vague and ambiguous statements of the oral testimony of
the nine witnesses produced by the plaintiff, the documentary and oral
evidence produced by defendant No. 1/respondent are found to be far
more reliable and taken collectively, they demolish the case of the
plaintiff that the suit property was purchased by Smt. Jog Maya from
ancestral funds. The plaintiff was unable to establish that the suit
property was purchased by Smt. Jog Maya from the ancestral funds or
the cash and jewellery left by her with defendant No.2/bank were
acquired from ancestral funds.
24. Similarly, the trial court cannot also be faulted for
discarding the evidence of PW-10. The said witness admitted that he
was a resident of Bulandshehar. The deposition made by him shows
that most of it was on the basis of hearsay and he had no personal
knowledge with regard to the allegations of the plaintiff that the suit
property was purchased by Smt. Jog Maya out of ancestral funds. No
material particulars pertaining to the purchase of the suit property
were stated by the said witness in his deposition. This Court concurs
with the opinion of the trial court that even if the statement of the
plaintiff that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid to him by Smt. Jog Maya
after getting the succession certificate in respect of the estate of Shri
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 16 of 21
Prahlad Missar, is accepted, the said amount can by no stretch of
imagination be treated as a part of the ancestral property to enable
the plaintiff to lay a claim to the suit property as ancestral property.
It is undisputed that the suit property was purchased by Smt. Jog
Maya in the year 1933 whereas, the suit out of which the present
appeal arises, was instituted by the plaintiff in January 1956, i.e., after
a lapse of about 23 years from the date of purchase thereof and only
upon the demise of Smt. Jog Maya. It is also undisputed by the
appellants that the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff only
after defendant No. 1/respondent filed a probate petition propounding
the Will executed by Smt. Jog Maya in his favour. Thus the same was
a counterblast to the probate proceedings initiated by defendant No.1.
The aforesaid conduct of the plaintiff casts a cloud on his bonafides,
which he was unable to dispel, by producing sufficient and reliable
evidence.
25. Furthermore, the stand of defendant No.1/respondent that
the suit property was purchased by Smt. Jog Maya from her istridhan
is quite plausible and the trial court was not wrong in observing that it
was not uncommon amongst the ladies to accumulate funds in their
hands for future investment in case of need. The allegation made by
the plaintiff that various sums out of the ancestral funds were
deposited by Smt. Jog Maya with a firm by the name of M/s Johri Mal
Sham Lal, which formed the basis for purchase of the suit property
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 17 of 21
remained unsubstantiated as he failed to produce on record any
witness to state that the amounts deposited by her with the said firm
or for that matter, summon the relevant records of the said firm to
establish the said allegations. Except for making a bald allegation
that Smt. Jog Maya deposited various sums out of the ancestral funds
with the aforesaid firm, the plaintiff made no efforts to substantiate
the same in any manner. Similarly, the allegations with regard to
deposits made by Smt. Jog Maya with defendant No. 2/bank being part
of the ancestral property were also not established by the plaintiff.
26. This Court therefore finds no infirmity in the findings of the
trial court as recorded in the impugned judgment. Having sifted
through the evidence and carefully scrutinized and weighed the oral
and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, the trial
court rightly arrived at the conclusion that most of the evidence
adduced on behalf of the plaintiff was based on hearsay and was
rather general in nature as against the evidence produced by
defendant No. 1/respondent. Hence, issues No. 1 and 2 framed on
31.10.1979 were rightly decided against the plaintiff by holding that
no worthwhile evidence was led by him to prove that the suit property
was purchased by Smt. Jog Maya out of the ancestral funds or that the
deposits made by her with defendant No. 2/bank in the shape of cash
and jewellery did not belong to her.
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 18 of 21
27. The last argument urged by the counsel for the appellant
that in para 14 of the plaint, the reference made to “the said property”
was in fact made in respect of the suit property as well, has to be
examined in the light of the averments made in the preceding paras of
the plaint. In para 12 of the plaint, it was averred by the plaintiff that
Smt. Jog Maya purchased the suit premises by virtue of the sale deed
dated 08.10.1933, out of the ancestral funds in her hands. In the
succeeding para, i.e., para 13, it was claimed that Smt. Jog Maya fell
into the grips of some interested parties and shifted to the suit
premises, i.e., House No. 1243/47, Nahar Saadat Khan, Rang Mahal,
Queen‟s Road, Delhi whereafter, she instituted a suit for possession,
declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff with regard
to House Nos. 1096 and 1097 situated in Gali Anar, Sat Ghara,
Dharam Pura, Delhi. No mention was made in para 13 of the plaint of
the suit premises. In the very next para No. 14, the plaintiff averred
that the suit filed by Smt. Jog Maya was hotly contested by him but in
the end, the same was compromised between the parties whereunder,
she “gave up her claim to the said property and agreed to accept from
the plaintiff Rs.10/- per month as maintenance allowance, which was
to be charged on the plaintiff‟s property”. A bare reading of para 14
shows that the reference to the “said property” in para 14 was to the
properties No. 1096 and 1097 situated in Gali Anar, Sat Ghara,
Dharam Pura, Delhi alone and could not be stretched to include the
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 19 of 21
suit property situated at Rang Mahal, Queens Road, Delhi as a part of
the compromise arrived at between the plaintiff and Smt. Jog Maya in
Suit No. 227/1935.
28. The reliance placed by the counsel for the appellants on the
judgments entitled Surendra Kumar vs. Phoolchand (dead) through
and Anr. (AIR 1996 SC 1148) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
and Ors. vs. Abhishek Shukla and Anr. [(2009) 5 SCC 368] do not
take his case further. In the case of Surendra Kumar (supra), the
Supreme Court held that a person alleging the property to be joint had
to establish that the family was possessed of some property with the
income of which the property could have been acquired and that such
a presumption is a presumption of fact which can be rebutted. But
where it is established or admitted that the family which possessed
joint property which from its nature and relative value may have
formed sufficient nucleus from which the property in question may
have been acquired, the presumption arises that it was joint property
and the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish
affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the
joint family. In the present case, for the counsel for the appellants to
contend that the onus had shifted to the defendant No. 1/respondent
to establish that the suit property and the movable properties of Smt.
Jog Maya were self-acquired, the plaintiff had to first establish that
Smt. Jog Maya had with her some ancestral funds/property which
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 20 of 21
could form the source of purchasing the suit property and the
movables claimed by him. The plaintiff utterly failed to discharge the
said onus placed on him. Similarly, the observations made by the
Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra),
approving the observation of the court below that the appellants
therein did not file the counter affidavit in a proper manner and that
denial was not in accordance with the mandate of Order 8 Rule 5 of
the CPC, is also not of any assistance to the appellants herein for the
reason that it was for the plaintiff in the suit to discharge the onus
placed on him in the first instance for the burden to shift to the
defendant No.1/respondent to establish affirmatively that the
properties, subject matter of the suit, were self-acquired. As noted
above, the plaintiff utterly failed to discharge the onus placed on him.
29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
is unable to persuade itself to interfere with the impugned judgment
and decree dated 02.12.1981 passed by the trial court, dismissing the
suit instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The
impugned judgment and decree are affirmed and the appeal is
dismissed as being devoid of merits with no orders as to costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 23, 2009 JUDGE
rkb/mk
RFA No. 46/1982 Page 21 of 21