The conduct of the parties and the relevance of documentary evidence are crucial in proving a family arrangement in property disputes.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

CM No.14239/2015

For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 63 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

RFA (OS) No.76/2015

1. As per practice directions issued by this Court record of CS (OS) No.1241/2008 has been sent along with the appeal and since learned counsel for the appellants desire to argue the matter today itself, we dispense with fixing a date for hearing the appellants as required by Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hear the appellants through their counsel.

2. Late Ms.Lajwanti was the owner of two tenements bearing No.1/5 and 1/5A Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The two are a composite property evidenced by Ex.PW-1/1, the conveyance deed executed by the Government of India in the name of Lajwanti. The ground floor area of the tenements is 255 sq.ft. Lajwanti was blessed with three sons named Dilbagh Rai, Om Prakash and Suraj Prakash. She was blessed with a daughter named Raj Chopra who died issueless. The appellant No.1 : Chanchal Chopra and the appellant No.2 : Deepak Chopra are the wife and son of late Shri Suraj Prakash Chopra. They along with Sunita Marwah (daughter of appellant No.1) were the plaintiffs in the suit. The defendants in the suit, save and except Rajiv Chopra are the children and the wife and children of Dilbagh Rai and Om Prakash. Rajiv Chopra is the son of Chanchal Chopra and has been impleaded as a defendant in the suit because he was not supportive of the case set up by his mother and his brother. Pleading that Lajwanti died intestate, the suit was filed in the year 2008 claiming partition of the suit tenements stating that till the year 2008 the appellants were in possession of a room on the rear of the tenements and alleged that they were illegally dispossessed therefrom by the defendants and that after the lock in their room was broken by the defendants, silver idols and jewellery kept in the room by them were stolen.

3. Case put up by defendants was that in the year 1965 money was given by Om Prakash and Dilbagh Rai to Late Sh.Suraj Prakash from which out of the fund provided to him he acquired House No.A-1/9, Moti Nagar, Delhi in the year 1965 and moved out with his family from the house with the understanding that Dilbagh Rai and Om Prakash would be owners of the property and that the same had the approval of the mother. It was pleaded that since the year 1965 Suraj Prakash and his family members had no concern with the suit property which was maintained and benefit thereof enjoyed initially by Om Prakash and Dilbagh Rai and thereafter by their children. It was asserted that after the death of Lajwanti, Late Sh.Suraj Prakash lived on for about 10 years and never claimed any title to the suit property. It was highlighted that the suit for partition was filed nearly 22 years after the death of Lajwanti.

4. From the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the core issue was whether an oral family understanding/settlement took place under which Late Sh.Suraj Prakash took some money or for that matter was given some money in the year 1965 and he moved out of the property with the express understanding that his two brothers would be the owners thereof.

5. The appellants examined the appellant No.2 as PW-1 and relevant would it to be highlight that to prove the appellants being in possession of a portion of the suit property he proved Ex.PW-1/2, Ex.PW-1/3, Ex.PW-1/4, Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6 being the complaints made to the police and the municipal authorities on April 13, 2008 and April 15, 2008 in which it was stated that after the defendants broke the lock of the room in possession of the appellants and removed silver idols and jewellery kept by the appellants in the room unauthorized construction was resorted to by the defendants. He also proved Ex.PW-1/7 being an assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1978-79, Ex.PW-1/8 being an assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1978-79, Ex.PW-1/9 being an assessment order p