IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manju Goel, J.
Mahesh Dhingra - Appellant
Versus
Kamla Dhingra - Respondent
CS(OS) No. 325 of 1984 & Crl.M.Nos.4742-43 of 96
Decided On : 28-11-2006
Manju Goel, J.
1. This is a suit for partition and rendition of accounts. The defendant No.2 is the sister of the plaintiff. They were both born to G.L.Dhingra and Padma Dhingra in Pakistan before the partition of the country in 1947. The properties of which the plaintiff seeks partition are in the possession of the defendant No.1, who allegedly married to late J.D.Dhingra, the brother of late G.L.Dhingra and uncle of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. The plaintiff claims that he and the defendant No.2 were adopted in their childhood by J.D.Dhingra and were, therefore, heirs to the properties of J.D.Dhingra. The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 at the same time dispute that the defendant No.1 was ever married or was validly married to J.D.Dhingra. The defendant No.1, on the other hand, disputes that the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were ever adopted by J.D.Dhingra and his late wife, Sheel Dhingra, who happened to be the sister of the defendant No.1. This is the gist of the entire gamut of the case. It is necessary to state in the beginning that there are several sets of plaints, written statements and replications as the defendant No.1 had to contest the plaint as well as the written statement of the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 also filed a reply to the written statement of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff also came out with further facts in his replication and thereafter also amended the plaint. Sans details, the pleadings as they chronologically appear are given below. The pedigree will help to understand the relationship of various persons whose names will appear in this judgment:
"Pedigree Chart
Matwalal Ram (married to Kesra Devi)
(died in 1967)
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
Karmo Devi (dead) Ganeshi (dead) G.L.Dhingra J.D.Dhingra
(Daughter) (Daughter) (Son)(died 1973) (Son)(died 1984)
(married to (married to (married to (married to
Bansi Narang) C.L.Chandna) (Padma) (Shanta)) (Sushil (Kamla))
| | (died 1947) (died 1973) or Sheel) (Defd.No.1)
------------------------- | | | (died 1968)
| | | | -----|------- |
Sheel Ramesh Suresh | Sarla Mahesh |
| (Defd. No.2)(Plaintiff) |
--------------------------- |
Om Rani JK -------------------
| |
Khamesh Naveen"
Plaint - dated 24.2.1984
2. The brothers, G.L.Dhingra and J.D.Dhingra, with their respective wifes, Padma and Sheel Dhingra, were settled in Leiah in Lahore and migrated to India following partition. On migration from Pakistan the family settled at 33/B, Pusa Road, New Delhi. The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were being looked after by J.D.Dhingra and Sheel Dhingra. In or around 1955 G.L.Dhingra being a widower proposed to remarry. Before G.L.Dhingra remarried, as agreed upon between G.L.Dhingra and J.D.Dhingra, the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were given in adoption by G.L.Dhingra to J.D.Dhingra and his wife Sheel Dhingra and thereafter the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 came to be known to friends, relatives and to the world at large as children of J.D.Dhingra and Sheel Dhingra and they ceased to have any right as members of the family of G.L.Dhingra. Sheel Dhingra died in February, 1968. G.L.Dhingra expired in July, 1973 leaving behind his second wife, Shanta, and two children born from his wedlock with Smt. Shanta. G.L.Dhingra by his last will had bequeathed all movable and immovable properties to his second wife, Shanta, to the total exclusion of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. In or around 1973, the defendant No.1, the real sister of Sheel Dhingra, a mother of five children, aged about 53 years started living with J.D.Dhingra. The defendant No.1 claimed to have obtained a decree of divorce from her previous husband, Prof. Gupta, and has been holding out to have remarried J.D.Dhingra. No issue was born out of the alleged wedlock between the defendant No.1, Kamla Gupta, and J.D.Dhingra. The defendant No.1 accepted the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 as ch
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.