The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims, especially when asserting the existence of an HUF, and highlights the enforceability of Arbitral Awards and Conveyance Deeds.

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit, (as per amended plaint dated 21st February, 2012 in Part-II file) for the reliefs of-

(i) declaration that the plaintiff along with the defendants no.2 to 5 is the co-owner of property no.B-30, Defence Colony, New Delhi, with each having 20% undivided share therein;

(ii) for cancellation of Arbitral Award dated 23rd March, 1968 and for declaration of the said Award as null and void, being a sham transaction and inadmissible for want of registration;

(iii) for partition of property no.B-30, Defence Colony, New Delhi;

(iv) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said property; and,

(v) for declaration as null and void of the Conveyance Deed dated 4th November, 1999 of freehold rights in the land underneath the property in favour of the defendant no.1, pleading:-

(a) that late Shri O.P. Oberoi, paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, along with his wife defendant no.1 Sheela Oberoi and his sons Satpal Oberoi and defendant no.3 Rajinder Pal Oberoi was the resident of Nowshera now in Pakistan;

(b) that the Oberoi clan, from the time of Salamat Rai Oberoi, the great great grandfather of O.P. Oberoi aforesaid, were involved in family business;

(c) that the family had various ancestral properties in Pakistan and moved to India during partition;

(d) O.P. Oberoi aforesaid along with his father Fakir Chand Oberoi and other members of the family as aforesaid at the time of partition moved to India;

(e) that at the time of partition, certain compensation money was received by the father of O.P. Oberoi from the Re-settlement Commissioner and the said money was put to various usages;

(f) that O.P. Oberoi also carried certain amounts of cash with him to India;

(g) O.P. Oberoi, with the ancestral nucleus and ancestral funds, purchased various properties, some in his own name and others in the names of his wife defendant no.1 and his sons defendant no.4 Yashpal Oberoi and defendant no.5 Harish Kumar Oberoi, born after partition;

(h) one such property was property no.B-30, Defence Colony, New Delhi;

(i) that property no.B-30, Defence Colony, New Delhi was bought in the year 1960 in the name of O.P. Oberoi, from the ancestral funds and from family nucleus;

(j) O.P. Oberoi also used ancestral nucleus money to construct the said property;

(k) O.P. Oberoi was carrying on business in the name and style of Uberoi Erection & Constructions Pvt. Limited;

(l) O.P. Oberoi died in the year 1986;

(m) the plaintiff is the son of Satpal Oberoi aforesaid; the said Satpal Oberoi, father of the plaintiff, died on 28th January, 2011; the defendant no.2 Kunal Oberoi is another son of Satpal Oberoi and brother of the plaintiff;

(n) that Satpal Oberoi, defendant no.3 Rajinder Pal Oberoi, defendant no.4 Yashpal Oberoi and defendant no.5 Harish Kumar Oberoi, all sons of O.P. Oberoi, although major, were in their early 20’s and were not in a position to arrange funds;

(o) that Satpal Oberoi, father of the plaintiff and the defendant no.2, though initially joined his brother defendant no.3 Rajinder Pal Oberoi in business of Shagoon Emporium of which defendant no.3 Rajinder Pal Oberoi was the proprietor but subsequently took up a job in M/s. Tiger Locks; however Satpal Oberoi along with his family including the plaintiff, continued to stay in property no.B-30, Defence Colony, New Delhi;

(p) that the plaintiff, on attaining adulthood also, stayed in property no.B-30, Defence Colony, New Delhi and always treated it as his ancestral home;

(q) that the plaintiff, in one of the recent trips prior to the institution of this suit, was asked by the defendants no.4&5 to sign an affidavit to the effect that the property no.B-30, Defence Colony, New Delhi belonged to defendant no.1 and stating that a registered Will had been executed by the defendant no.1 with respect to the said property; similarly, the brother of the plaintiff i.e. the defendant no.2, was also asked to sign some documents;

(r) on asking of the plaintif