BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THE suit as well as the probate case have been instituted by Mrs. Pamela Kumar. Both the matters were heard together on the preliminary issues framed therein. Since the facts are common to both the suit and the probate case, this common judgment shall dispose of the preliminary issues in both the matters.

( 2 ) THE suit is essentially one of partition and possession in respect of the property bearing No. 28, Fire Brigade Lane, New Delhi. Mrs. Pamela kumar (the plaintiff) claims a half share in the said suit property. On the basis of such claim she seeks a decree of partition and possession in respect of the said half share as also mesne profits against the defendant No. 1 (Mr. Chandrashekhar ). The other defendants, namely, Mr. Arun Mohan (defendant No. 2), Mrs Lalita Steinmetz (defendant No. 3), Mrs Mala Goel (defendant No. 4), the Land and Development Office (defendant No. 6) and the District Judge, Tis Hazari (defendant No. 7) are not contesting defendants. The defendant No. 5 had been deleted vide order dated 15. 10. 2001. In the suit the plaintiff ( Mrs. Pamela Kumar) has also sought a declaration that the decree dated 02. 09. 1966 in RFA No. 140-D/1962 is null and void.

( 3 ) THE probate case has been filed by Mrs. Pamela Kumar seeking probate of a purported Will of February 1954 alleged to have been executed by late Mr. Chandra Mohan Lal in favour of late Mr. Radhe Mohan Lal. Late mr. Chandra Mohan Lal and late Mr. Radhe Mohan Lal were brothers. The defendant No. 1 (Mr. Chandrashekhar) claims to be the adopted son of late mr. Chandra Mohan Lal and his wife late Mrs. Gomti Devi.

( 4 ) THE facts of the suit as well as the probate case are common and are intertwined. Mrs. Pamela Kumar claims to be the half owner of the suit property on account of her being the daughter of late Mr. Radhe Mohan Lal, who in turn, according to her, derived title over the same because of the purported Will of 1954 executed by his brother late Mr. Chandra Mohan Lal in his favour. She also submits that the said Will of February 1954 is in the possession of her brother Mr. Arun Mohan (defendant No. 2), who has chosen not to produce the same in collusion with Mr. Chandrashekhar (defendant No. 1 ).

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the defendant No. 1, who is the contesting defendant in the suit, has claimed title over the entire suit property on the basis of a registered Will dated 18. 03. 1954 executed by late Mr. Chandra mohan Lal whereby a life interest was granted in favour of his widow Mrs gomti Devi and thereafter the entire suit property was to devolve upon Mr. Chandrashekhar. It appears that there was another prior Will executed by late Mr. Chandra Mohan Lal on 14. 04. 1953 by which the suit property was divided into two shares and was to devolve upon Mrs. Gomti Devi and the defendant No. 1 (Mr. Chandrashekhar) in equal measure. That Will was also a registered Will. However, the defendant No. 1 (Mr. Chandrashekhar)contended that the earlier Will stood revoked and cancelled by the subsequent Will of 18. 03. 1954. Therefore, the entire suit property devolved upon him. It must be noted that there was litigation between Mr. Chandrashekhar and Mrs Gomti Devi in respect of the said Wills and the suit property. The nature of the litigations would become clear upon noting the chronology of events.

( 6 ) IT is an admitted position that late Mr. Chandra Mohan Lal was the owner of the building standing on 28 Fire Brigade Lane, Connaught Place, new Delhi. It is also admitted that late Mr. Chandra Mohan Lal had leasehold rights over the land. The lease was granted to late Mr. Chandra mohan Lal- on behalf of the President of India through the Land and development Office (the defendant No. 6 ). Late Mr. Chandra Mohan Lal had executed an adoption deed on 26. 02. 1953 adopting Mr. Chandrashekhar (who was the minor son of Mr. Tara Chand Brij Mohan ). The said adoption deed was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document