Pamela Manmohan Singh v. Harnam Kaur

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MARCH 24, 2017

"gsr"

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DATE OF DECISION: 24 TH MARCH, 2017 + CS(OS) 206/2016 PAMELA MANMOHAN SINGH ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mahendra Rana, Adv. Versus HARNAM KAUR (DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. for D-1 to 3. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CONT. CAS NO. 113/1993, CONT. CAS NO. 45/2007 & CONT. CAS NO. 46/2007 1. The plaintiff instituted this suit i) for declaration that the sale deeds, all dated 6th December, 1988, executed by the defendant no.4 Sh. K.V. Kohli in favour of defendants no.1 to 3 viz. Mrs. Harnam Kaur, Mrs. Mahinder Kaur and Mr. Jagjit Singh, do not confer any title in the defendants no.1 to 3 and the plaintiff is the owner of 2/3rd of, property No.6-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi; ii) in the alternative for partition declaring that the plaintiff has 2/3rd share in the property No. 6-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi and of division of the property by metes and bounds and putting the plaintiff in possession of her portion of the property. 2. Vide order dated 14th March, 1990, while issuing summons of the suit, the defendants no.1 to 3 were restrained from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of property No.6-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi, wholly or in part, in any manner and from raising any further construction on the said property. 3. Contempt Case No.113/1993 has been filed averring disobedience by the defendants no.1 to 3 of the aforesaid order dated 14th March, 1990. It is pleaded i) that upon the defendants no.1 to 3, in disobedience of the order dated 14th March, 1990, continuing with the construction, the plaintiff applied for appointment of a Commissioner to visit the premises and vide order dated 9th February, 1993, a Court Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises and to report about the construction in existence; ii) that the Court Commissioner visited the property on 1st March, 1993 and filed a report dated 22nd April, 1993 detailing the existing construction in the property; iii) that though as per the report of the Court Commissioner there was only one entrance gate to the property but the defendants no.1 to 3 have thereafter constructed an additional gate; iv) that the defendants no.1 to 3 have also demolished the entire outer block described in the report of the Court Commissioner; v) that the defendants no.1 to 3 have constructed a room adjacent to the front wall where the additional gate has been constructed; vi) that the defendants no.1 to 3 have converted the tin sheet roof of the main block to a cemented roof and have also constructed doors, windows, ventilators and board panels annexed with the roof; vii) that the defendants no.1 to 3 have made other structural changes; and, viii) that the defendants no.1 to 3 have also parted with possession of the property to owners of "BELTEK". Reliefs, of sealing of the property, punishing the defendants no.1 to 3 and purging of the contempt have been sought. 4. Contempt Case No.45/2005 has been filed by the plaintiff averring i) that the property No. 6-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi was owned and possessed by the mother of the plaintiff Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli and was recorded with the Land & Development Office (L&DO) in the name of Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli; ii) that during the pendency of the suit, defendants no.1 to 3 in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant no.4 have forged the plaintiff"s signatures on two affidavits dated 17th November, 1989 and 20th September,1991 to the effect that the plaintiff has no objection if the suit property is mutated in the name of defendants no.1 to 3 and to the Will dated 7th March, 1986 of Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli and have submitted the same before the L&DO; iii) that in this manner, the defendants have on 2nd January, 1992 obtained mutation of the property without disclosing to the L&DO the true facts; iv) that on the application of the plaintiff vide order dated 17th November