SHRI DANI RAM BIRHMAN vs SHRI SURAJ BHAN & ORS

$~10

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26th February, 2024
+ CS(OS) 496/2016 & & I.A. 3039/2023

SHRI DANI RAM BIRHMAN ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Chiranjeev Sugandh, Advocate with plaintiff in person.

versus

SHRI SURAJ BHAN & ORS ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Devendra Dogra & Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates for D-1 & 2.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T (oral)
I.A. 5606/2023 (u/O VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)
1. By way of present application, the applicants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, seek permission to place documents on record.
2. The applicants seek to place the following documents, on record to prove the existence of ancestral property/HUF:-
(i) Letter dated 13.01.1967 written by Late Ch. Hari Chand to C.E.O., Delhi Cantonment.
(ii) Insurance Certificates of BUS No. DLP-428-T.M.B.BUS Model 1969 in the name of if M/s Sher Singh Dani Ram.
(iii) I.T. Assessment dated 06.10.1988 in the name of Dani Ram.
(iv) I.T. Assessment for the year 2003-2004 in the name of Dani Ram.
(v) I.T. Assessment for the year 2004-2005 in the name of Dani Ram.
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, during the course of arguments, relied on the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022 decided on 17.05.2022 by the Supreme Court, in support of application.
4. The application is contested by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who have taken the objection to such belated filing of the documents by the applicants. It is also asserted that these documents are of no relevance and consequence for adjudication of the disputes in issue.
5. Therefore, it is submitted that the application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Submissions heard.
7. The applicants have explained all these documents which are I.T. Assessments, Letter dated 13.01.1967 written by Late Ch. Hari Chand to C.E.O., Delhi Cantonment and Insurance Certificates, are only to corroborate the claim of the plaintiff that it was the joint family funds/ancestral properties which had been used to purchase the suit properties for the benefit of coparceners in the HUF.
8. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the merits or demerits of the rival contentions/ claims of the parties, which can be adjudicated only after the evidence is concluded.
9. The evidence of the plaintiff is yet being recorded; therefore, the present application is allowed and the documents are hereby taken on record to be proved in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 496/2016 & & I.A. 3039/2023
11. List before the Joint Registrar for recording of evidence on 09.04.2024, the date already fixed.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2024
S.Sharma

CS(OS) 496/2016 Page 1 of 3