2019 NearLaw (DelhiHC) Online 114
Delhi High Court

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

RAJINDER PERSHAD GOEL Vs. GIAN CHAND GOEL & ORS

CS(OS) 2477/2014 & I.As. 3875/2018 & 14487/2018

9th January 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Arvind Kumar Ms. Sneha Upadhay Mr. Rajesh Rai Mr. Rishi Kumar
Respondent Counsel: Ms. Parul Agarwal Ms. Shobhana Takiar Ms. Indrani Ghosh Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth

However, the Plaintiff relying upon the Will dated 13th July, 1968 registered on 15th July, 1968 submits that the said property was bequeathed to all the six sons in equal shares, namely, Mr Rajinder Pershad Goel, Mr Gian Chand Goel, Mr Kanhiya Goel @ Sanjay Goel, Mr Leela Dhar Goel, Mr Jagdish Goel and Mr Narain Dass (since deceased).
counsel appearing for Mr Rajesh Goel and also his wife Mrs Mridula Goel who is stated to be present in Court, submits that her clients also admit the execution of the Will subject to the condition that it may be recorded by the Court that Mrs Mridula Goel has purchased the share of Mr Gian Chand Goel Defendant No1.
counsel appearing for LRs of Late Mr Dinesh Goel (son of Late Mr Narain Dass), namely, Mrs Punam Goel (Defendant No3), Miss Munmun Goel (Defendant No7) and Miss Tania Goel (Defendant No9) submits that her clients do not dispute the execution and validity of the Will.
All pending IAs also stand disposed of.

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present suit is for partition, declaration, rendition of accounts and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Counsel for the Plaintiff No.1 - Mr. Arvind Kumar submits under instructions from his client who is present in Court that his client does not wish to press reliefs (b) to (f) and only prays for decree in terms of prayer (a) of the suit. Accordingly, the suit qua relief (b) to (f) is dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Mr. Rajesh Rai, Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Leela Dhar Goel – Defendant No.3 who has been transposed as Plaintiff No.2 who is also present in Court also concurs with the same position.

3. Late Mr. Panna Lal Goel was the owner of property bearing No. D-111, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi-110007. The case of the parties is that Late Mr. Panna Lal Goel had six sons and five daughters. However, the Plaintiff relying upon the Will dated 13th July, 1968 registered on 15th July, 1968 submits that the said property was bequeathed to all the six sons in equal shares, namely, Mr. Rajinder Pershad Goel, Mr. Gian Chand Goel, Mr. Kanhiya Goel @ Sanjay Goel, Mr. Leela Dhar Goel, Mr. Jagdish Goel and Mr. Narain Dass (since deceased). The Plaintiffs and Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 are the five sons. Defendants No.5, 6 and 8 are the wife and the children of Late Mr. Narain Dass.

4. The present application under Order XII Rule 6 being I.A. No.3875/2018 has been moved on the premise that all the parties have admitted the existence, validity and the execution of the Will. It is submitted by the Plaintiffs that in view of the admissions made in the written statements filed by the Defendants, the suit deserves to be decreed in terms of para (a) and each of the sons ought to be held as being entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property.

5. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Ld. Counsel appearing for Defendant No.4 – Mr. Jagdish Goel and Defendant No.5 – Mrs. Sarla Goel submits that her clients do not dispute the execution of the Will. However, she submits that the share of Defendant No.1 i.e. Mr. Gian Chand Goel has been purchased by the wife of Mr. Rajesh Goel – Defendant No. 8 i.e. Mrs. Mridula Goel and she has not been impleaded in the present suit. She thus submits that though the Will and the share of each of the brothers are admitted, since, Mrs. Mridula Goel is not a party, the Plaintiff ought to be directed to implead her as a party.

6. Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Ld. counsel appearing for Mr. Rajesh Goel and also his wife Mrs. Mridula Goel who is stated to be present in Court, submits that her clients also admit the execution of the Will subject to the condition that it may be recorded by the Court that Mrs. Mridula Goel has purchased the share of Mr. Gian Chand Goel – Defendant No.1.

7. Ms. Indirani Ghosh, Ld. counsel appearing for LRs of Late Mr. Dinesh Goel (son of Late Mr. Narain Dass), namely, Mrs. Punam Goel (Defendant No.3), Miss Munmun Goel (Defendant No.7) and Miss Tania Goel (Defendant No.9) submits that her clients do not dispute the execution and validity of the Will. She has no objection if the suit is decreed in terms of para (a).

8. Mr. Farish K. Jain, Ld. counsel appearing for Mr. Pradeep Goel – Defendant No. 6 - son of Late Mr. Narain Dass submits that his client does not dispute the execution of the Will. However, he submits that since Late Mr. Narain Dass is entitled to 1/6th share, his client would be entitled to 1/24th share in the suit property. This position is disputed by the other heirs of Late Mr. Narain Dass who are represented by Ms. Takiar and Ms. Mahajan.

9. Insofar as the dispute between the LRs of Late Mr. Narain Dass is concerned, the same is not the subject matter of the present suit.

10. In the present suit, this Court is considering the Will dated 13th July, 1968/15th July, 1968 of Late Mr. Panna Lal Goel. The Will is admitted by all the parties who are present before the Court. The extracts from the written statements of the defendants admitting the Will are extracted hereinbelow:

Defendant No. 2 - Kanhiya Goel @ Sanjay Goel represented by Parul Agarwal
“2. That in reply to para no. 2 of the plaint, it is admitted that the suit property is the self acquired property of Sh Panna Lal Goel who was competent to deal with the said suit property in any manner whatsoever he liked. Therefore in his life time Sh. Panna Lai Goel had executed his last Will and testament dated 19.07.1968. This Will is a duly registered Will with the office of Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, vide Document No. 452 in Book No. III, Volume No. 22, at pages 144 to 147 dated 19.07.1968.”
Defendant No. 4,5,7 and 8
Preliminary submissions (para 3)
“3. Sh. Panna Lai left behind a Will dated 15.07.1968 and according to the said will, the entire built up property bearing no. D-111 was given to his six sons.”
Reply on Merits (para 2)
“2. That the contents of para 2 are admitted to an extent that Sh. Panna Lai during his lifetime executed his last Will and testament and it was registered on 15.07.1968.”
Defendant No. 6- Mr. Pradeep Goel
Para 2,3 of the WS
“2. That the contents of para no.2 of the plaint are admitted to be correct.”
“3. That the contents of para no.3 of the plaint are admitted to be correct except the alleged condition for transfer of the share among six brothers. It is submitted that as per the registered WILL dated 19.07.1968 of Late Shri Panna Lai Goel, after the death of Smt. Gindori Devi, Plaintiff, Defendant No.l to 4 and legal heirs of Late Shri Narain Dass i.e. Defendant No.5 to 8 each became owner of undivided 1/6th share in the suit property.”
Defendant No. 3/Plaintiff No. 2- Leela Dhar Goel
“1. That the contents of Para 1-3 are admitted. It is further submitted that vide Will dated 19/07/1968 Sh. Panna Lai Goel bequeathed the premises D- 111, Kamla Nagar, Delhi in favour of his all six sons however no partition by metes and bounds has ever taken place till date.”

11. The Will is in Urdu and bears different dates. Some parties refer to it by the date of execution but some of them refer to the Will by the date of registration. But all counsels submit clearly that the document is the one which is placed on record at pages 4 to 11 of the Plaintiff’s documents. The Will having been admitted between the parties and no other family members having raised any objection in respect of the said Will, the share of each of the sons of Late Mr. Panna Lal Goel is declared to be 1/6th each in the suit property.

12. Insofar as the purchase by Mrs. Mridula Goel of the share of Mr. Gian Chand Goel is concerned, Mrs. Mridula Goel is not a party in the present suit. Ms. Takiar submits that the Plaintiffs have already admitted in collateral proceedings as to this purchase having been made. This Court has only passed a decree declaring that the sons of Late Mr. Panna Lal Goel would be entitled to 1/6th share each and nothing more. None of the other issues have been adjudicated by the Court in the present suit.

13. If Defendant No.1 has already sold his share, then this order would not vest any rights in Defendant No.1. None of the other issues are pressed.

14. Suit is decreed declaring that the following persons:

(i) Mr. Rajinder Pershad Goel,
(ii) Mr. Gian Chand Goel,
(iii) Mr. Kanhiya Goel @ Sanjay Goel
(iv) Mr. Leela Dhar Goel
(v) Mr. Jagdish Goel and
(vi) Mr. Narain Dass (since deceased)
all being sons of Late Sh. Panna Lal Goel are the owners of 1/6th share in D-111, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi-110007.

15. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. All pending I.As also stand disposed of.