- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Anita Kumari Gupta v. Ved Bhushan
Structured Summary of the Court's Order
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff filed CS (OS) No. 1093 of 2011 seeking a partition of property situated at 24, Pusa Road, New Delhi, claiming a 1/6 undivided share as one of six legal heirs. The Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 are siblings; Defendants 5 and 6 are sons of a deceased brother. The Plaintiff is an NRI resident in Australia who asserted physical possession of two rooms in the suit property and said she stayed there when visiting India.
The Plaintiff's account is that the father purchased the suit property in the early 1950s and after his death the property devolved on the mother, who (the Plaintiff alleges) died intestate, entitling the Plaintiff to a 1/6 share. The Plaintiff alleged an oral agreement among heirs to defer sale and claimed the Defendants resisted producing title documents, prompting her to file the present suit seeking a preliminary and final decree for partition by metes and bounds, possession, permanent injunction, damages and costs.
The Defendants' position (as recorded in the written statement and submissions) is that the mother executed a Will dated 8 December 1988 bequeathing the property to her four sons and excluding the two daughters; on that basis, the property was mutated in the names of the four sons in municipal and DDA records. The Defendants asserted the Plaintiff had given no objection to mutation and that the Plaintiff's suit was barred by laches.
Procedurally, the Court ordered service and caused the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to produce mutation records. The DDA produced original records (initial production on 16 May 2011; further calling and retention on later dates). Statements recorded before the DDA, including one attributed to the Plaintiff on 11 January 1996 expressing no objection to mutation, were reviewed. The Plaintiff later alleged that her signature in the DDA file had been obtained on blank paper and fabricated.
The Court considered IA No. 14420 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (seeking rejection of the plaint) and, after analysis of the DDA records and parties' positions, allowed that application and rejected the plaint. Several other interlocutory applications were disposed of as not surviving or dismissed for reasons recorded in the order (including applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC; Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC; Section 340 CrPC; Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment; and Section 151 CPC).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action such that it should survive scrutiny under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
- Whether the suit for partition is barred by laches given the history of mutation and the Plaintiff's conduct.
- Whether the Plaintiff's challenge to the DDA record (allegation that her signature was obtained on blank papers and the file fabricated) is supported by the pleadings and evidence presented.
- Whether the Plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint to incorporate a challenge to the Will dated 8 December 1988 (application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC).
- Whether interlocutory applications (including applications for interim injunction, criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, and others) should be entertained or disposed of in light of the above findings and the familial nature of the dispute.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff is the youngest child of the deceased parents and an NRI residing in Australia; she retained physical possession of two rooms in the suit property and claims a 1/6 undivided share after the mother's death.
- The Plaintiff alleged there was an oral family agreement not to sell the property until unanimous decision by heirs about division.
- Despite requests, Defendants resisted producing title documents; the Plaintiff could not obtain documents from the Land & Building Department and sought the Court's intervention to obtain DDA records.
- The Plaintiff sought partition by metes and bounds, interim reliefs including injunction and costs.
- After DDA record production, the Plaintiff alleged that her signature in the DDA record was obtained on blank paper which was subsequently filled in and that the DDA record was false and fabricated.
Defendants' Arguments
- The Defendants (1–3 and the father of 5 & 6) relied on the Will of the mother dated 8 December 1988 which allegedly bequeathed the property exclusively to the four sons and explicitly excluded the daughters.
- Mutation in the Municipal (MCD) records and subsequently in DDA records was effected in favour of the four sons based on the Will; statements of all six heirs were recorded before the DDA.
- It was contended that the Plaintiff had given her no objection to the mutation; the DDA record contains a recorded statement of the Plaintiff on 11 January 1996 expressing no objection and identification particulars (passport number recorded) and witnessed signatures.
- The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had no right in the suit property and that the suit was barred by laches because of the long delay in bringing the suit following the mother's death and the mutation.
- Defendant No. 1 filed an IA under Section 340 CrPC alleging false statements by the Plaintiff.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the documentary record produced by the DDA, including a copy of the Will dated 8 December 1988 and the DDA file notings and statements recorded in the course of mutation proceedings. The DDA record showed:
- A request by Defendants 1 to 4 to the DDA dated 18 September 1995 enclosing the death certificate of the mother and a copy of her Will, requesting mutation in their names.
- Notings of proceedings (including 23 November 1995) and recorded statements of men identified as Mr. Sushil Bhushan, Mr. Vijay Bhushan and Mr. Ved Bhushan with signatures on the file.
- A recorded statement of the Plaintiff (Smt. Anita Gupta) on 11 January 1996 where she had purportedly expressed no objection to mutation; the file records the witness (Mr. Anand Bhushan) and identification details (driving licence number for the witness and the Plaintiff's passport number).
The Plaintiff's subsequent allegation that her signature had been taken on blank paper and the DDA file fabricated was evaluated by the Court. The Court noted that:
- There was no apparent sign of tampering in the continuously numbered DDA files and no evident reason for fabrication by the DDA.
- The plaint itself did not aver that the Plaintiff had been asked to sign blank papers — the claim of fabrication was thus characterized as an afterthought by the Court.
- The Plaintiff provided no satisfactory explanation for the long delay in asserting her title after the mother's death and the mutation; the Court concluded the suit is barred by laches.
- The Court found that the Plaintiff had not come to court with clean hands, having suppressed material facts about her alleged prior agreement to the mutation.
On these bases the Court concluded that the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action entitling the Plaintiff to the reliefs claimed and therefore merited rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Concerning other interlocutory applications: the Court recorded production and retention of DDA records, noted a statement by certain Defendants that they had no intention to alienate the property until the next hearing, and disposed of other pending IAs either because they did not survive the order dismissing the plaint or because the Court considered them inappropriate to entertain further given the familial nature of the dispute and the Plaintiff's residence abroad (this reasoning applied, for example, in disposing of the Section 340 CrPC application filed by Defendants).
The application by the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint to incorporate a challenge to the Will dated 8 December 1988 was dismissed for lack of merit for the reasons recorded above.
Holding and Implications
The Court allowed IA No. 14420 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint.
Direct consequences recorded in the order:
- The main suit for partition was dismissed at the threshold by rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- Interlocutory applications filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC were disposed of as not surviving.
- Applications filed by Defendants (including an application under Order XXV Rule 1 CPC and an application under Section 340 CrPC) were disposed of; the Section 340 CrPC application was not entertained further in view of the Plaintiff's residence abroad and the family nature of the dispute.
- The Plaintiff's application to amend the plaint to challenge the Will (Order VI Rule 17 CPC) was dismissed.
The order therefore resulted in final dismissal of the Plaintiff's suit at the pleading stage and disposal/dismissal of associated interlocutory applications. The decision does not purport to create or announce a new legal precedent; it rests on the Court's evaluation of documentary evidence (DDA records), factual findings about delay and suppression, and application of established equitable doctrines (laches and clean hands) as set out in the opinion.
ORDER
IA No. 14420 of 2011 (u/O VII Rule 11 CPC) & CS (OS) No. 1093 of 2011
1. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for partition to declare the Plaintiff to be a co-owner to the extent of 1/6th share in the property at 24, Pusa Road, New Delhi - 110 005 (‘the suit property’). The Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 are real brothers and sisters respectively. The Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are the two sons of the deceased brother, Mr. Sushil Bhushan.
2. The case of the Plaintiff is that she is the youngest of the children of the deceased father late Mr. Pitamber Lal and mother late Mrs. Lajwanti Devi. She is a non-resident Indian (‘NRI’). Soon after marriage, the Plaintiff settled in Australia. However, she claims to ARUN KUMAR 16-07-2013 16:35:53 have retained the physical possession of one room at the ground floor and another room on the first floor of the suit property where she has been keeping her belongings. It is stated that whenever she visits India, she stays in the said rooms in her possession.
3. It is stated that the father, late Mr. Pitamber Lal, died on 18 December 1965 and the mother late Mrs. Lajwanit Devi expired on th March 1991. The suit property is stated to have been purchased by her father late Mr. Pitamber Lal in the early 1950s and thereafter a building was also constructed by him soon thereafter. After the death of the father, the suit property devolved on the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4. It is further stated that the mother late Mrs. Lajwanti Devi died intestate and the Plaintiff inherited 1/6 undivided share in the suit property.
4. The Plaintiff claims that there was an oral agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that since there was no urgent need, the suit property would not be sold till all the parties as legal heirs reached an unanimous decision about the division of the suit property.
5. The Plaintiff states that despite requests to the Defendants for a copy of all the title documents pertaining to the suit property, the Defendants kept resisting such request. Despite approaching the Land & Building Department, the Plaintiff was unable to get the documents. The case of the Plaintiff is that there was extensive correspondence exchanged between the parties regarding division of the suit property. There was no cooperation of the parties despite repeated requests made by the Plaintiff for partition of the suit. In the circumstances, the present suit was filed.
6. In the suit it is prayed that a preliminary decree for partition, followed up by a final decree of partition of the suit property by metes and bounds be passed after appointing a Local Commissioner (‘LC’) and thereafter the parties be put in possession of their respective portions. An incidental prayer for declaration for permanent injunction and for damages and costs has also been made.
7. While directing to issue summons in the suit and notice in the application (IA No. 7352 of 2011) under order xxxix rules 1 & 2 cpc, it was noted by the Court in paras 2 to 9, as under:
“2. The learned Senior counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the suit property bearing No. 24, Pusa Road, New Delhi - 110 005 was owned by late Pitamber Lal who died intestate on 18 December 1965 whereupon the suit property devolved upon the Plaintiff, Defendants and their mother. It is submitted that the Plaintiff’s mother Lajwanti Devi also died intestate on 28 March 1991 whereupon her share also equally devolved upon the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff claims to have 1/6 share in the suit property.
3. The learned counsel for Defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 submit that the suit property was owned by late Lajwanti Devi who died on 28 March 1991 leaving behind Will dated 8 December 1988 in favour of the four sons, namely Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and father of Defendant Nos. 5 and 6. It is submitted that the Plaintiff gave her no objection to the said Will whereupon the said suit property was mutated by DDA in the aforesaid names on 1st March 1996.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the record of the DDA may be requisitioned to verify the statement given by the learned counsel for the Defendant.
5. The notice is issued to DDA through the learned Standing counsel to produce the record of property bearing No. 24, Pusa Road, New Delhi - 110005 including the relevant papers relating to the mutation. The record be produced before Court on 12 May 2011.
6. The notice to the DDA be given dasti to learned counsel for the Plaintiff who shall serve the same on the learned Standing counsel for the DDA. The Plaintiff shall also furnish the complete set of the paper book to learned Standing counsel for DDA.
7. The learned Senior counsel for the Plaintiff seeks interim injunction in this matter. The same shall be considered after examining the record of the DDA on the next date of hearing.
8. The parties shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for both the parties under signature of Court Master.”
8. On the next date of hearing, i.e, 12 May 2011 a direction was issued to the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) to produce the relevant record relating to the suit property.
9. On 16 May 2011 the original records relating to the mutation of the suit property was produced by the DDA. A copy thereof was retained.
10. On 8 August 2011 a statement was made on behalf of Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 on instructions that till the next date of hearing the said Defendants have no intention to sell, alienate or part with possession of the suit property. That statement made by the said Defendants has continued since.
11. The original record of the DDA was again called for by an order dated 19 September 2011, brought to the Court on 23rd November 2011 and has been retained since.
12. It may be mentioned at this stage that Defendant No. 1 has filed IA No. 7833 of 2011 under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’) alleging that false statements have been made by the Plaintiff.
13. On 20 March 2013 a statement was made on behalf of the Plaintiff that she was prepared to deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 within four weeks.
14. Defendant No. 1 expired and his legal representatives were brought on record by its order dated 19 March 2013 in IA No. 4115 of 2013. The interim order was directed to continue.
15. The case of the Defendants in the written statement is that late Mrs. Lajwanit Devi (mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4) left behind her last Will and Testament dated 8 December 1988 by virtue of which the suit property was bequeath by her in favour of four sons. In the said Will she had specifically mentioned that she does not want to give any property to her daughters, i.e, Plaintiff and Defendant No. 4. It was stated in the Will that both daughters are married and they have their own families. The mother stated that they were given “whatever I wanted to give during my life and I do not wish to give them anything more out of my estate, except as specified by me hereunder in para No. 3.” As a result, the four sons (Defendants 1 to 3 and father of Defendants 5 and 6) became the absolute and exclusive owners of the entire property and this was accepted by the daughters, including the Plaintiff. It is stated that on the basis of the Will the said property was mutated in name of the four sons in the record of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) by letter of mutation dated th November 1991. The said mutation was within the knowledge of the both daughters (Plaintiff and Defendant No. 4) since the beginning and they never objected to it. Thereafter, the four sons applied to the DDA for mutation of the suit property on the basis of the mother’s Will dated 8 December 1988. Statements were recorded before the DDA of all the six legal heirs, i.e, four sons and two daughters including the Plaintiff. Thereafter DDA allowed the mutation of the suit property in favour of the four sons by letter of mutation dated 1 March 1996. At no stage was any objection raised by the Plaintiff to the said mutation. It is asserted by the Defendants that the Plaintiff did not have any right in the suit property. It is submitted that the suit is barred by laches since nearly twenty years after the death of the mother, the Plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit for partition.
16. The submissions of learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The original records of the DDA have been perused by the Court. It is seen that the records containing a copy of the Will dated 8 December 1988, the original of which appears to have been produced for verification. The notings on the file disclose what transpired before the DDA. There was a request by Defendants 1 to 4 to the DDA on 18 September 1995 informing it of the death of the mother on 28 March 1991, enclosing the death certificate as well as a copy of her Will. A request was made for mutation of the property in their names in equal shares. There are notings on what transpired on 23 November 1995. The statements made by Mr. Sushil Bhushan have been recorded. He has signed on the left hand of the page. Mr. Vijay Bhushan and Mr. Ved Bhushan have also signed on the left side of the page. On 11 January 1996 the statement of Smt. Anita Gupta (Plaintiff herein) was recorded. This was witnessed by Mr. Anand Bhushan. She had expressed her no objection to the mutation being carried out in favour of the Defendants 1 to 3 and the father of Defendants 5 and 6. Mr. Anand Bhushan has signed as a witness on the left side of the page. Mr. Anand Bhushan has given below his signature the details of his driving licence number by way of identification. Below her signature again on the left side, the Plaintiff herein has given her passport number by way of identification.
17. It was earnestly pleaded by learned counsel for the Plaintiff that the said signature of Plaintiff was taken on a blank paper which was then got filled up and inserted in the DDA’s file. He, therefore, alleged that the record of the DDA in this regard was false and fabricated.
18. The above submissions have been considered. There is no need for DDA to resort any fabrication. The files appear to have been continuously numbered. There does not appear to be any sign of a tempering. Significatnly, there is no averment in the plaint that the Plaintiff was asked to sign blank papaers. This stand is plainly an afterthought. On the other hand the Plaintiff has no satisfactory explanation as to what she was doing all these years after the death of her mother, and after the mutation was carried out in favour of the Defendants 1 to 4 admittedly to her knowledge. The suit is barred by laches. Further, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has suppressed material facts of her having agreed to the mutation of the suit property in favour of the Defendants 1 to 4.
19. The plaint, therefore, does not disclose any cause of action giving rise to any of the reliefs as prayed for by the Plaintiff. The application, IA No. 14420 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is accordingly allowed and the plaint is rejected.
IA Nos. 7352 of 2011 (filed by the Plaintiff u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2
CPC) & 7355 of 2011 (filed by the Plaintiff u/O XXVI Rule 9 CPC)
20. These applications do not survive and they are disposed of accordingly.
IA No. 7834 of 2011 (filed by Defendants 1 to 3, 5 & 6 u/O XXV Rule 1 CPC)
21. The application does not survive and it is disposed of accordingly.
IA No. 7833 of 2011 (filed by Defendants 1 to 3, 5 & 6 u/S 340 CrPC)
22. Since the Plaintiff is residing in Australia and this being essentially a family dispute, and with a view to ensure finality, it is not considered appropriate to entertain this application further. It is disposed of.
IA No. 8823 of 2011 (filed by the Plaintiff u/O VI R 17 CPC)
23. By this application, the Plaintiff seeks to amend the entire plaint incorporating a challenge to the Will dated 8 December 1988 of the mother.
24. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in the application for amendment and it is dismissed as such.
IA No. 7727 of 2013 (u/S 151 CPC)
25. The application does not survive and it is disposed of accordingly.
Alert