SONNY SARNA & ANR vs URMIL WADHAWAN & ORS

2024-04-04 Information

$~35

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision:4th April, 2024
+ CS(OS) 1642/2012
SONNY SARNA & ANR ….. Plaintiffs
Through: Counsel for plaintiffs.

versus

URMIL WADHAWAN & ORS ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Priyank Mohan and Mr. Manmohan Gupta, Advocates for D1 & D2 along with D1.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T (oral)
I.A. 7607/2024 (under Section 151 CPC read with Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for placing on record certain additional documents)

1. The application under Section 151 CPC read with Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC has been filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for placing on record the additional documents which are relevant for the evidence of the defendants.
2. In order to understand the relevancy of the documents to the present Suit, it would be pertinent to refer in brief, to the respective Case of the parties. The plaintiffs who are the co-owners of the Suit property bearing No. 211, Jor Bagh, Delhi-11003, had asserted that the plaintiff No. 2 had developed special affection towards Late Sh. Kailash Berry, who became her good friend and confidante and because of the trust generated inter se them, he was permitted initially to use the address of the suit premises as his correspondence address but eventually on the Suit premises being vacated by the tenants, Sh. Kailash Berry shifted to the Suit premises as a permissive user. Urmil Wadhawan, defendant No. 1 who is the sister of Late Sh. Kailash Berry, and Mr. Anuj Wadhawan defendant No. 2, her son, eventually came to live in the Suit premises along with Sh. Kailash Berry, essentially to take care of him. Sh. Kailash Berry died on 13.01.2006 and the plaintiffs asked defendant No. 1 and of defendant No. 1, to vacate the Suit premises. Disputes arose about vacating of the property and present Suit for Possession got filed by the plaintiffs.
3. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint Written Statement, have set- up a defence that the Suit premises had been purchased by the deceased Sh. Kailash Berry during his lifetime, on the basis of an Agreement to Sell and a Receipt duly executed in his favour. Sh. Kailash Berry was a bachelor and inter se settlement took place amongst his legal heirs and defendant No. 1 being the sister, has inherited his rights. She claimed that she has acquired ownership rights in the Suit property and the defendant No. 2 being her son also resides with her, as a family member, in the Suit property. She has thus resisted the Suit for Possession and has denied that she is only in permissive occupation and not in the capacity of a co-owner.
4. The Issues were framed on 15.01.2019. Thereafter, the defendants had raised challenge in respect of the framing of issues in so much as she was asked to commence the evidence and thereafter, the defendants have been directed to lead evidence. It is submitted that on account of her having been asked to open the evidence, it has become pertinent for her to now place on record the additional documents.
5. The first document is the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) that was filed by Late Sh. Kailash Berry, in the Income-Tax Department wherein he has declared about the purchase of the Suit property. It is explained that though the entire set of documents had already been filed but the requisite page could not be inadvertently filed. Therefore, it is submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record, is part of the set of documents which has already been filed.
6. Considering the nature of the documents and the explanation given on behalf of the defendants, document No. 1 is permitted to be filed.
7. The document No. 2 is the Certificate and Memorandum showing formation of Society Computer Development Council by the defendant No. 2, Mr. Anuj Wadhawan. Similarly, document No. 3 is a Letter written by the Principal of Lokmanya Tilak Inter College, Pratapgarh, to show that defendant No. 2 was engaged in the work of establishing the Computer Centre. The document No. 4 is the Photograph taken in the year 1992, to show that the defendant No. 2 was setting-up the Computer Centre at Pratapgarh. The document No. 5 is a Letter to show that the defendant No. 2 was residing in England in October 1993, at the time when the plaintiff No. 1, Sonny Sarna executed the Affidavit-cum-Receipt dated 01.10.1993.
8. Learned counsel on behalf of the defendants has sought to explain the relevancy of these documents by asserting that the defendant No. 2 being the son of the defendant No. 1, had been residing with her as a family member, in the Suit premises, though he from time to time, had been going to different places for the purpose of his education or to pursue his career. He has submitted that these documents are merely to establish that the defendant No. 2 has also been residing in the Suit premises.
9. First and foremost, these documents were in power and possession of the defendants. A vague explanation has been given that they were lying in a dossier, which has been recently found by the defendants.
10. It is pertinent to mention that it is an admitted Case that the defendant No. 1 along with her son, defendant No. 2, is in occupation of the Suit premises. These documents, which are sought to be relied to establish the defendant No. 2 has also been residing in the Suit premises, is of no consequence since these facts already stand admitted in the pleadings.
11. The document No. 6 are two NDMC Electricity and Water Bills of the period 1991-1992, which the defendant No. 1 has claimed that she had paid those bills. The document No. 7 is the Recent bills of Electricity/Water for the Suit premises showing existence of 3 separate Electricity/Water connections, out of which one connection is being used by the defendant No. 1, Urmil Wadhawan. Similarly, document No. 8 is Indraprastha Gas Ltd. Connection dated 09.12.2001, showing that gas connection had been obtained by the defendant No. 1, at the Suit premises and the recent Bills to show that she has been making payment. The document No. 9 are the photographs showing the exclusive possession of the staircase of the defendant No.1.
12. All these documents are only to re-assert the claim that the defendant No. 1 has been in possession of the Suit premises. As already observed, this factum is not under challenge and therefore, these documents are only to corroborate or substantiate the assertions of the defendant No. 1 in respect of the facts, which already stand admitted. Therefore, these documents are not relevant for the adjudication of the controversy in hand.
13. The document No. 10 is the Ration Card of Late Sh. Kailash Berry for the period 1997-2000. The document No. 11 is the Photograph of one Mr. Dalip Kumar having tea with Late Sh. Kailash Berry, in the Suit premises. The document No. 12 is the Photograph of plaintiff No. 2/Col. H.S. Sarna visiting Late Sh. Kailash Berry at 8/27, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, residence of Late Sh. Kailash Berry.
14. Again, these three documents are only to show that Sh. Kailash Berry was residing in the Suit property and that he also had his residence at 8/27, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, which again is not under challenge in the present Suit, and therefore not relevant for adjudication of the facts which are already admitted.
15. The document No. 13 is the Site Plan of the portion of the Suit property which according to the defendants, is in her possession. It has been explained that inadvertently the site plan filed by the plaintiff in the rent proceedings, has been filed instead of the correct Site Plan of defendant No. 1 and 2, showing the exact portion of which he is claiming to be owner/in possession of the Suit property, along with the Written Statement.
16. The site plan is only an illustrative depiction of the portion of the suit property claimed to be in possession of the defendants, in the Written Statement. Considering the explanation given that inadvertently the Site Plan as relied by the plaintiff has been filed, instead of the Written Statement relied by the defendant, the same is permitted to be placed on record.
17. To conclude, essentially the Case of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is that an Agreement to Sell and receipt had been executed in favour of Late Sh. Kailash Berry, by virtue of which he became the owner of the Suit premises. The defendant No. 1 being the legal heir of Late Sh. Kailash Berry, has inherited the Suit property and she has been residing in the premises along with her son/defendant No. 2. Considering the scope of controversy, the Electricity/Water Bills, Ration Card, Gas Connection, Photographs, as discussed above, are only in respect of the admitted facts and therefore, not relevant.
18. The application is partly allowed and the document at Serial No. 1, which is Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) and document at Serial No. 13, which is the Site Plan relied upon by the Defendants, are permitted to be taken on record.
19. The application is accordingly disposed of.
CS(OS) 1642/2012
20. Be listed before the learned Joint Registrar for recording of the evidence on 20.05.2024.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
APRIL, 04, 2024/RS

CS(OS) 1642/2012 Page 1 of 6