The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of a Will and the application of fundamental principles of Indian law, including the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGEMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as A&C Act, 1996) read with Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act 2015, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2022, whereby the objections of respondent no.1 under Section 34 of A&C Act,1996 against the Award dated 2nd March, 2020, have been allowed and it is held that late Smt. Kalyani Roy was the absolute owner of the property in respect of which she had entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Respondent no.1 Shri. Sandeep Soni.

2. The facts in brief are that Shri Subhash Chand Roy, deceased father of the appellant and respondent nos. 2 to 4 i.e. Mrs. Gouri Sarkar, Mr. Amitabho Roy & Mr. Partho Sarathi Roy, was the absolute owner of property bearing No. D-603, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110017, admeasuring 160 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Late Shri Subhash Chand Roy executed a Will dated 15thMarch, 1988, bequeathing the suit property in favor of his wife. He died on 30thJanuary, 1991 and was survived by his wife Smt. Kalyani Roy and the children i.e. the appellant and respondent nos. 2 to 4.

3. The legal heirs, viz. appellant- Sh. Sanjay Roy and respondent No.2 to 4 gave a 'No Objection' in favour of Smt. Kalyani Roy who got the property mutated in her name vide letter No. L&DO/PSII/280 dated 6thApril, 1995. Subsequently, a Conveyance Deed dated 7thDecember, 2001 was also executed by the L&DO in favour of Smt. Kalyani Roy.

4. Smt. Kalyani Roy also executed a Will dated 30th March, 2016 wherein she bequeathed the suit property equally to the appellant and the respondents Nos.2 to 4 i.e. (i) Mrs. Gauri Sarkar (Daughter) (ii) Amitabho Roy (Son) (iii) Sanjay Roy (Son) (iv) ParthoSarthy Roy (Son, who left the house on 07.10.1999 subject to the condition that if he did not turn back within one year from the date of demise of Smt. Kalyani Roy, his 1/4th share shall devolve upon her following four grandchildren, namely: (a) Aditi Sarkar D/o Sh. Pronab Kumar Sarkar (b) Shibhani Roy D/ Sh. Sanjay Roy (c) Juimala Roy D/o SH. Sanjay Roy, and (d) Aditya Roy S/o Amitabho Roy.

5. Smt. Kalyani Roy died on 19.01.2017. During her lifetime, she entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 9thAugust, 2016 with respondent no.1 as the owner of the suit property, according to which the property after demolition, was to be re-constructed and developed after getting the building plan sanctioned from the concerned authority. The allocation of specific floors as well as schedule of payment was defined in the Collaboration Agreement. An amount of ^25,00,000/-was also paid to Smt. Kalyani Roy by respondent no.1 in terms of the Collaboration Agreement. A Deed of Extension was entered into on 27.10.2016 revising the date of completion as 30.04.2017.

6. The appellant herein was aggrieved by the Collaboration Agreement on the premise that Smt. Kalyani Roy who was residing with respondent no. 2, was neither in possession of the property nor did she have any ownership right in the suit property to enter into the Collaboration Agreement as she was conferred only with a lifetime interest under the Will of her husband, late Shri Subhash Chand Roy. The entire documentation and Collaboration Agreement was manipulated by respondent no. 2 along with her husband, with whom Smt. Kalyani Roy was residing, in conspiracy with the sister and the other brothers namely respondent no.2-Mrs. Gouri Sarkar, respondent no. 3- Mr. Amitabho Roy and respondent no. 4- Mr. Partho Sarathi Roy. The appellant sent a Legal Notice dated 10thDecember, 2016 to respondent no. 2 and her husband Mr. P.K. Sarkar as they were the executors of the Will of Late Subhash Chand Roy, who instead of getting the Will probated, conspired with the respondents to sell the property, taking advantage of Smt. Kalyani Roy being sick and bed ridden.

7. The appellant who was in possession of the ground floor of the suit prop