Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 70
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
PREM NATH CHOPRA – Plaintiff
versus
ARUN CHOPRA & ORS - Defendants
CS (OS) No. 2169 of 2006 & IA No. 14130 of 2008
Decided on: January 8, 2014
Mr. Y.P. Narula, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aniruddha Choudhary & Mr. Abhay Narula, Advocates
Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shweta Bharti, Mr. Shantanu, Mr. Vikram Hazarika, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Indian Succession Act, and Indian Evidence Act in a property dispute.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Indian Succession Act - Indian Evidence Act - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The judgment discusses the legal provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Indian Succession Act, and Indian Evidence Act in the context of a property dispute. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of these acts and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of immovable property and division of movable assets. The Defendants claimed ownership based on Wills and mutation of property.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiff's challenge to the conveyance deed was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. The Court also found the Will of late Mr. S.L. Chopra to be genuine and valid.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Will of late Mr. S.L. Chopra and the challenge to the conveyance deed in favor of the Defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the challenge to the conveyance deed was barred by limitation and found the Will of late Mr. S.L. Chopra to be genuine and valid.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000 to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. The interim orders were vacated and pending applications were disposed of.
1. The Plaintiff, Mr. Prem Nath Chopra, son of late Mr. Chanan Das Chopra, has filed this suit for partition in respect of the immovable property at D-354, Defence Colony, New Delhi (‘the suit property’) and division of the movable assets of late Mr. Sham Lal Chopra as listed out in Annexure-A and Annexure-B to the plaint. The Defendants in the suit are Mr. Arun Chopra (Defendant No. 1), Mr. Vivek Chopra (Defendant No. 2), Mr. Virendar Katiyal (Defendant No. 3), Mr. Ranjan Katiyal (Defendant No. 4), Mrs. Sudesh Prabhakar (Defendant No. 5), Ms. Sunita Katiyal (Defendant No. 6), Mrs. Rita Sharma (Defendant No. 7), Ms. Ruby Ahuja (Defendant No. 8) and Ms. Rosy Ahuja (Defendant No. 9).
2. The suit property was given on lease by the President of India in favour of Wing Commander Maharaj Kishan Chopra (‘Mr. M.K. Chopra’), the brother of the Plaintiff. Mr. M. K. Chopra died on 30th January 1984 leaving behind his wife, Mrs. Har Kaur Chopra. They had no children. Mrs. Har Kaur Chopra died on 7th June 1988.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that both Mr. M.K. Chopra as well as Mrs. Har Kaur Chopra died intestate. In the very first paragraph of the plaint it is stated that the Plaintiff was not aware as to how the conveyance deed in respect of the suit property has been registered in the name of deceased Group Captain Mr. Sham Lal Chopra (‘Mr. S.L. Chopra’) as the Plaintiff and the other heirs of Mr. M.K. Chopra never received any information or notice from the authorities, i.e., the Land and Development Office (L&DO).
4. The pedigree table of the parties as set out in the plaint is as under:
Mr. M. K. Chopra
(died on 30th January 1984)
|
Mrs. Har Kaur Chopra (w/o Mr. M.K. Chopra)
(died on 7th June 1988)
|
Mr. S.L. Chopra
|
(his wife Mrs. Kamla Chopra had pre-deceased him and the couple had no issue and parents of the parties had pre-deceased them)
|
Class II heirs left by Mr. S.L. Chopra
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
Prem Nath Chopra H.L. Chopra Shanti Devi Kamla Ahuja
Brother Brother Sister Sister
(Plaintiff herein) (now deceased) (now deceased) (now deceased)
his heirs her sons and her sons and
Arun Chopra daughters daughters
Vivek Chopra Virender Katiyal Rita Sharma
(Nephews) Ranjan Katiyal Ruby Ahuja
(Deft 1 & 2) Sudesh Prabhkar Rosy Ahuja
Sunita Katiyal (Def 7 to 9)
(Deft 3 to 6)
5. The case of the Plaintiff is that even late Mr. S.L. Chopra, another brother of the Plaintiff, died intestate on 4th October 2006. In para 4 it is stated that late Mr. S. L. Chopra was the owner of the suit property and a conveyance deed was registered in his name on 3rd February 1997. It is further stated that he inherited the suit property from his elder brother Mr. M.K. Chopra. The details of the movable assets of late Mr. S.L. Chopra are set out in Annexure A and Annexure B to the plaint. The case of the Plaintiff is that he has 25% share in the estate of late Mr. S.L. Chopra and Defendants 1 and 2, being the legal heirs of late Mr. H.L. Chopra, another brother of the Plaintiff, have a 12.5% share each. It is stated that Defendants 3, 4, 5 and 6, who are children of the sister late Mrs. Shanti Devi, have 6.25% share each and Defendants 7, 8 and 9, who are children of late Mrs. Kamla Ahuja, have 8.33% share each in the estate of late Mr. S.L. Chopra. The Plaintiff is stated to be in actual possession of the ground floor of the suit property. It is stated that Defendant 1 and his wife are threatening of take the possession of first floor of the suit property from the tenant, ABP Private Limited. The Plaintiff’s request to the Defendants to mutually settle the disputes was not heeded. In the circumstances, the present suit was filed.
6. While directing issuance of summons in the suit and notice in the application, IA No. 12977 of 2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) on 24th N
