IMPORTANT POINT
Suit cannot be based on mutually destructive stands.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.—This is a suit for partition, rendition of accounts, injunction etc filed by the plaintiff Smt. Meena Bhatnagar, who is the daughter of Sh. Sohan Lal Bhatnagar and the granddaughter of Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar. Sh. Sohan Lal Bhatnagar was one of the sons of Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar with the other son being Sh. Kundan Lal Bhatnagar.

2. As per the plaint, the plaintiff claims that the two suit properties, namely, 83-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi and 13-F, Kamla Nagar, Delhi are liable to be partitioned on account of the fact that these properties were the HUF properties in the hands of late Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar as they were purchased by Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar from the funds received by him as compensation from the Government of India, Rehabilitation Department on account of the ancestral properties left in Pakistan. In the replication the plaintiff has taken a totally different pleading that the properties were purchased out of the funds of the sale of the ancestral properties left in Pakistan i.e not from the funds received from the Rehabilitation Department.

3. Therefore, reading of the plaint shows pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff states that Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar received Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation from the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation in lieu of the ancestral property left in Pakistan, however, when the contesting defendant nos. 9, 12, 13 and 14/defendant nos.1 to 4 filed the written statements pointing out that the two suit properties were purchased by Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar even prior to partition in the year 1947 i.e property no.13-F, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi was purchased by an Agreement dated 01.05.1942 from the Municipal Committee of Delhi and property No.83-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi was purchased by a Sale Deed dated 26.01.1945 from one Smt. Oma Kapoor, in the replication filed by the plaintiff to this para of the written statement, a totally new case is set up by the plaintiff stating that even if the properties are not purchased from the moneys received from the Ministry of Rehabilitation, yet, these properties were purchased by Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar from the funds received from the ancestral properties of Sh. Mool Chand Bhatnagar. Therefore, the plaintiff has given a total go by to the case set up in the plaint of having purchased the two properties from the compensation received from the Ministry of Rehabilitation from the ancestral properties left in Pakistan on partition in 1947. No doubt, an alternative case can be set up as per the pleadings but mutually destructive cases cannot be set up. The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint, when taken in terms of the replication filed by the plaintiff, both the stands became mutually destructive inasmuch as the two suit properties cannot be purchased on account of moneys received from the Ministry of Rehabilitation as also on account of moneys received from the sale of ancestral properties in Pakistan.

4. Not only the plaintiff has set up wholly inconsistent cases as per her pleadings, the suit filed deliberately and vaguely talks of entitlement of plaintiff to cancellation of certain documentation alleging them to be forged and fabricated and without at all stating what these documents are with respect to which cancellation is sought by the plaintiff. The vagueness of this case of seeking cancellation of documents, and which documents are alleged to be forged and fabricated, becomes clear from the averments made in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the plaint read with prayer clause (c), and these paragraphs 20 and 21 with prayer clause (c) read as under:-

“20. That the Plaintiff has also come to know that the Defendants in collusion with each other have restored to forgery, fabrication and misappropriation of some documents in order to create rights in their favour which are required to be cancelled.

21. That it is also pertinent to mention here that Defendant No.12 and 13 especially