SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and partition in respect of estate of late Seth Muni Lal mehra. The declaration is sought in respect of the Will dated 23. 3. 1993 which, according to the plaintiff, is a forged one. The plaintiff claims share to the extent of 1/24 in the estate. The plaintiff has also claimed the relief of rendition of accounts against defendants No. 1 to 5.

( 2 ) IT is necessary to set out the relationship of the parties. The plaintiff is the son of Shri Raj kishore Seth. Shri Raj Kishore Seth was married to Late smt. Saroj Seth who is the daughter of late Seth Muni Lal mehra. Defendants No. 1 to 4 are the sons of late Seth muni Lal Mehra. One of the sons of late Seth Muni Lal mehra pre-deceased him and thus the second line has been impleaded as defendants. The brothers and sisters of the plaintiff have also been arrayed as defendants.

( 3 ) IN the plaint, it is stated that the properties mentioned in para 2 of the plaint are the self-acquired properties of late Seth Muni Lal Mehra and there may be even other properties of which the particulars would be with defendants No. 1 to 6.

( 4 ) THE list of properties given in para 2 includes some movable assets apart from the immovable properties. The immovable properties are stated to be John Mills, agra and four bungalows in Agra Cantt. There are only two immovable properties set out of Delhi. These properties are D-372, Defence Colony, New Delhi and 785, nai Sarak, Delhi.

( 5 ) IN the written statement filed by defendants no. 1 to 5, inter alia, an objection was taken about the territorial jurisdiction of this court. This plea was based on the fact that there was no immovable property of late Seth Muni Lal Mehra located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court while there were immovable properties situated at Agra.

( 6 ) IN respect of the two properties at Delhi mentioned in the plaint, it is stated that property No. D- 372, Defence Colony, New Delhi is the leasehold property owned by a company named M/s Krishan Prashad Brothers pvt. Ltd. and that late Seth Muni Lal Mehra was neither a subscriber nor a Director of the company. Property No. 785, Nai Sarak, Delhi is stated to be a tenancy of M/s krishan Prashad Brothers. , a partnership firm in which firm late Seth Muni Lal Mehra was not a partner at the time of his death. The written statement of defendants no. 6 to 10 adopts the stand of the defendants No. 1 to 5. Defendant No. 13 has also taken more or less the similar stand.

( 7 ) IN the replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendants, it has been stated that late Seth Muni Lal Mehra was the Managing Director of the m/s Krishan Prashad Brothers. It has also been denied that late Seth Muni Lal Mehra was not a partner in M/s krishan Prashad Brothers carrying on business at Nai sarak.

( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid pleading, a preliminary issue was framed on 4. 8. 2004 as under: Issue No. 1whether the Delhi court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPP Learned counsel for the parties stated that no evidence was required for the disposal of this issue.

( 9 ) IT is on the aforesaid issue that arguments have been heard of learned counsel for the parties.

( 10 ) A reading of the pleadings as set out herein above would show that it is really not in dispute that late Seth Muni Lal Mehra was not either the exclusive owner or co-owner of any of the properties situated in delhi. The first property being D-372, Defence Colony is owned by a limited company. Even if late Seth Muni Lal mehra had some shareholding in the company, the plaintiff would have to establish the rights to the shares. It is not denied by the plaintiff that the property vests in the limited company and not with late Seth Muni Lal mehra. Similarly, the property at Nai Sarak is only the tenancy rights and that too in the name of a firm of which late Seth Muni Lal Mehra was not the partner.

( 11 ) LEARNED counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document