IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 06, CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CS No. 9901/16
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. M/s. K.C. Chopra Son, H.U.F.
Through its Karta Shri Atul Mani Chopra
8/1, Atur Park, 5 Koregaon Road,
Pune – 411 001.
R/o. J12/19, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
2. Shri Atul Mani Chopra
S/o. Sh. K.C. Chopra
R/o. J12/19, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. …….PLAINTIFFS
Versus
Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla (now deceased)
(Through her Lrs)
(i) Shri Manu Bhalla
S/o. Late Mulkh Raj Bhalla
(ii) Shri Munish Bhalla (deceased),
S/o. Smt. Adarsh Bhalla
(Through his Legal Heirs)
(a) Smt. Ritoo Bhalla Widow
(b) Ms. Sonal Bhalla Daughter
(c) Ms. Simran Bhalla Daughter
No.(i) and Lrs of (ii) R/o. C/o.
D36A, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi – 110 027.
(iii) Smt. Charu
(iv) Smt. Gera
Both married daughters of deceased
Both (iii) (iv) daughters of:
(Addresses not known). ….DEFENDANTS
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 1/24
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 07.04.1997
Date of Reserving Judgment : 01.08.2018
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2018
SUIT FOR DECLARATION FOR CANCELLATION OF WILL DATED
04.01.1989 OF LATE COL. K.C. CHOPRA
JUDGMENT:
1. Plaintiff Atul Mani Chopra has sought declaration and cancellation of
Will dated 04/01/1989 allegedly executed by testator late Sh. K.C. Chopra,
propounded by Smt. Adarsh Bhalla D/o. Late Sh. K.C. Chopra in PC No.
42150/16, as null and void.
2. Plaintiff is stated to have become karta of M/s. K.C. Chopra Son
(HUF) after the death of his adoptive father late Sh. K.C. Chopra, who created
the said HUF in the year 1966. Sh. K.C. Chopra expired on 14/01/1989 leaving
behind his adopted son Atul Mani Chopra (plaintiff) and his daughter Mrs.
Adarsh Bhalla (defendant, now deceased) as his only legal heirs.
3. Late Sh. K.C. Chopra was owner of property No. C354, Defence Colony,
New Delhi, which was purchased by him vide Lease Deed/Conveyance Deed
executed in his favour by President of India. In the year 1966, late Sh. K.C.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 2/24
Chopra formed an HUF comprising of himself as karta and his adopted son
Atul Mani Chopra (plaintiff herein) as coparcener. Sh. K.C. Chopra converted
the said property into an HUF property in the year 1966 and filed declaration
and other documents in income tax record that the said property be assessed in
the name of K.C. Chopra Son (HUF) for the purpose of income tax returns
and wealth tax returns. Plaintiff filed documents in this regard. The defendant
has also derived monetary benefits from the said HUF property.
4. As per plaint, Sh. K.C. Chopra had not been keeping good health prior to
his death and was admitted in Army Hospital, Delhi, for his treatment, where he
expired on 14/01/1989. The defendant, in collusion with Sh. R.L. Chaudhary
and Major K.S. Verma, fabricated a Will dated 04/01/1989 of late Sh. K.C.
Chopra, in which the said perSon signed as attesting witnesses. Through the
said Will, properties were bequeathed to defendant Smt. Adarsh Bhalla and to
others. Defendant Smt. Adarsh Bhalla applied for grant of Probate on the basis
of the Will dated 04/01/1989 in a separate Probate petition but did not get the
notice issued to plaintiff herein, who was karta of M/s. K.C. Chopra Son
(HUF) and was also one of the legal heir of the deceased. When plaintiff came
to know of the same, he filed objections in the said Probate petition.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 3/24
5. As per plaint, the Will dated 04/01/1989 does not disclose the fact that
property no. C354, Defence Colony, New Delhi, had been sold by late Sh.
K.C. Chopra to Son of the defendant. The defendant, in collusion with her Son
Manu Bhalla and Manish Bhalla, wrongfully attempted to deprive the plaintiff
of his valuable right in the property of the above mentioned HUF.
6. As per plaint, the defendant in collusion with her Son Manu Bhalla and
Manish Bhalla filed the original Will in another case in the Court of Ms.
Poonam Chaudhary, Ld. SubJudge, Delhi, only on 07/04/1994 at the time of
cross examination of Sh. K.S. Verma, who was attesting witness to the Will
dated 04/01/1989. Thus, the plaintiff came to know of the said Will only on
07/04/1994.
7. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant has no right to get benefits of
the Will dated 04/01/1989 in respect of the HUF properties and the said Will
was a forged and fabricated document.
8. As per plaint, the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff when
plaintiff Atul Mani Chopra succeeded as the karta of HUF and sent legal notice
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 4/24
in August, 1989, to the tenant occupying the property no. C354, Defence
Colony, New Delhi. The cause of action again arose when the plaintiff came to
know of the petition filed by the defendant for grant of Probate of Will dated
04/01/1989. The cause of action again arose on 07/04/1994 when counsel for
defendant filed original Will dated 04/01/1989 in the Court of Ld. SubJudge,
Delhi, during cross examination of a witness.
9. In response to the suit, defendant Smt. Adarsh Bhalla filed her written
statement and objected that plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the suit as
he was not entitled to the assets left behind by late Col. K.C. Chopra other than
those mentioned in the Will dated 04/01/1989. She asserted that the plaintiff
had not approached the court with clean hands and had concealed material facts
from the Court. She asserted that plaintiff Atul Mani Chopra was neither the
legally adopted son of late Col. K.C. Chopra, nor had any right in the suit
property. Defendant asserted that the suit has been instituted after lapse of
limitation period of three years as the plaintiff had knowledge of the Will since
04/01/1989. She submitted that the suit property was self acquired and
exclusive property of late Col. K.C. Chopra; the HUF had no claim of
ownership over it. She stated that the she is the only child of late Col. K.C.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 5/24
Chopra and his sole survive legal heir. Defendant denied all the allegations of
the plaintiff and stated that the Will dated 04/01/1989 was executed by late Col.
K.C. Chopra in his sound disposing mind.
10. In pursuance of rival pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed on 08/12/1998:
(i) Was late Col. K. C. Chopra not in sound disposing mind on 04/01/1989?
(ii) Did late Col. K.C. Chopra execute any Will on 04/01/1989?
(iii) Did late Col. K. C. Chopra had no capacity to execute the Will, if any, of
04/01/1989 in respect of property no. C354, Defence Colony, New
Delhi?
(iv) Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief prayed for?
11. In order to prove the issues in his favour, plaintiff examined as many as
15 witnesses. On the other hand, the defendants examined four witnesses in
support of their pleadings.
12. (a) PW1 is Sh. O.P. Kohli. He deposed that he met Col. K.C. Chopra two
months before his death at a bus stop in Rajouri Garden and observed that he
was not in sound disposing mind when he met him.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 6/24
12(b). PW2 is Sh. P. Singodan, Manager, Indian Bank. He produced the
summoned bank record of K.C. Chopra Son (HUF), Ex. PW2/1 to Ex.
PW2/23.
12(c). PW3 is Sh. K.B. Kapoor, Finance Manager, Steel Authority of India. He
produced summoned record of fixed deposit of Rs.30,000/, prepared in the
name of M/s. K.C. Chopra (HUF).
12(d). PW4 is Sh. B.K. Bharti, Inspector of Income Tax, Vikas Bhawan, New
Delhi. He produced the summoned record of tax assessment of K.C. Chopra
Son (HUF) for the tax assessment year 1988 to 1996.
12(e). PW5 is Sh. T.C. Gupta, Inspector of Income Tax, I.T.O., New Delhi. He
produced the summoned record of income tax and wealth tax returns of K.C.
Chopra Son (HUF), through its karta Mr. K.C. Chopra, for the assessment
year 1980 to 1998 in respect of property no. C354, Defence Colony, New
Delhi, which has been shown as HUF property.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 7/24
12(f). PW6 is Naik Narender Singh, Record Clerk, Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt.
He produced the summoned medical record regarding hospitalization of late
Col. K.C. Chopra on 10/01/1989 and his death in the hospital on 14/01/1989
due to cerebrovascular accident.
12(g). PW7 is Sh. Satish Chopra, younger brother of plaintiff Atul Mani
Chopra. He deposed that the plaintiff was adopted by late Col. K.C. Chopra. He
also deposed that 45 months prior to his death, late Col. K.C. Chopra had
fallen and had not been maintaining good health and sound mind. He deposed
that plaintiff was coparcener in M/s. K.C. Chopra Son (HUF) of which Sh.
K.C. Chopra was the karta.
12(h). PW8 Dr. K.K. Chopra is also one of the brothers of plaintiff Atul Mani
Chopra. He deposed that plaintiff was adopted son of late Col. K.C. Chopra. He
stated that late Col. K.C. Chopra had not been keeping good health prior to his
death and was not in a position to speak or sign any document. He stated that in
the year 1966, late Col. K.C. Chopra had thrown his property no.C354,
Defence Colony, New Delhi, in the HUF named K.C. Chopra Son, in which
he was karta and plaintiff was coparcener.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 8/24
12(i). Sh. Satish Kumar Ahuja, UDC, Record Room, Sessions, Tis Hazari
Courts, was also, inadvertently, examined as PW8. He produced the summoned
record pertaining to house tax appeal bearing no. 1540/97 in the case titled as
Adarsh Bhalla Vs. MCD.
12(j). PW9 is Harender Kumar Singh, LDC, Record Room, Sessions, Tis
Hazari Courts. He produced the summoned record of house tax appeal filed by
Smt. Adarsh Bhalla against four respondents viz. MCD, Atul Mani Chopra,
Hindustan Cables and Major Manu Bhalla.
12(k). PW10 is Sh. Rishi Kumar, Jr. Judicial Assistant, Delhi High Court, New
Delhi. He produced the summoned record of suit no. 671/1994, contested
between Atul Mani Chopra and Adarsh Bhalla.
12(l). PW11 is Siya Nand Rathi, Asstt. Ahlmad, in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge,
Tis Hazari Courts. He produced the summoned record of case titled as Manish
Bhalla Vs. Smt. Adarsh Bhalla bearing no. 351/90.
12(m). PW12 is plaintiff Sh. Atul Mani Chopra himself. He was cross
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 9/24
examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant but he did not complete his testimony
on the deferred date for cross examination despite repeated opportunities.
12(n). PW13 is Sh. Shiv Kumar, Naib Subedar, Army Head Quarter. He
produced the summoned record of extract of veteran register in respect of late
Col. K.C. Chopra, Ex. PW13/2. He also produced the army service record of
plaintiff Atul Mani Chopra S/o. Sh. K.C. Chopra, Ex. PW13/3.
12(o). PW14 is Sh. Abraham Verghese, Dealing Officer, AOBF, Army Head
Quarter. He produced the summoned record of AOBF Card of late Col. K.C.
Chopra, Ex. PW14/B. The photocopy of grant paid to Sh. Atul Mani Chopra,
adopted son of late Col. K.C. Chopra and Smt. Adarsh Bhalla D/o. Late Col.
K.C. Chopra is Ex. PW14/C.
12(p). PW15 is Sh. Naseeb Kumar, Asstt. Ahlmad of the Court of Ld. ACJ
(Central), Tis Hazari Courts. He produced the summoned record of case titled
as K.C. Chopra etc. Vs. State bearing serial no. 474/93, alongwith attached file
of case no. 220/96.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 10/24
13. DW1 is Sh. Umesh Sharma, Ahlmad of the Court of Ld. ADJ,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. He produced the summoned record of case no.
134/10/06 titled as K.C. Chopra Vs. Hindustan Cables etc., Ex. DW1/1.
14. DW2 is Achint Prakash, Ahlmad of the Court of Ld. Civil Judge
(Central), Tis Hazari Courts. He produced the summoned record of case M. No.
45/08/08, titled as Munish Bhalla Vs. Adarsh Bhalla. The pleadings of parties,
the statements of witnesses and other relevant documents adduced in evidence
in the said case are Ex. DW2/1 to Ex. DW2/8.
15. DW3 is Sh. Manu Bhalla, son of defendant Smt. Adarsh Bhalla. He
deposed that plaintiff was not the adopted son of late Col. K.C. Chopra. He
deposed that late Col. K.C. Chopra had executed the Will dated 04/01/1989, Ex.
DW3/3 and appointed his daughter Adarsh Bhalla (defendant herein) as the
executor.
16. DW4 Smt. Uma Devi identified the signature of her fatherinlaw i.e.
attesting witness late Major K.S. Verma (Retd.), the Will dated 04/01/1989, Ex.
DW3/3.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 11/24
17. I have heard the final arguments from both sides and analyzed the
evidence adduced by the parties.
18. Now my issuewise findings are as under:
19. Issue No.(i): Was late Col. K. C. Chopra not in sound disposing mind on
04/01/1989?
19(i). Section 59 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, deals with the capacity of a
person to make a Will. It provides that every person of sound mind not being a
minor may dispose of his property by Will. Thus, the soundness of mind is one
of the prerequisites to making of a valid Will. While appreciating the evidence
relating to Will, the Courts have required that the propounder of the Will has to
show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the
testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind and that
he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to
the document of his own free will.
19(ii)(a). PW1 O.P. Kohli deposed that he knew late Col. K.C. Chopra as his
father had brokered a land deal for him. Since then Sh. K.C. Chopra became a
friend of his father. He stated that he met late Col. K.C. Chopra two months
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 12/24
prior to his death at bus stop, Rajouri Garden and wanted to board bus no. 820.
He stated that he observed that Sh. K.C. Chopra was not in balanced state of
mind and was not aware what he was speaking. He stated that Sh. K.C. Chopra
told him that he had been wrongly guided by some person to board wrong bus
for Cannaught Place, although, he wanted to go to Karol Bagh. Sh. K.C. Chopra
was not aware what was wrong and what was right. He deposed that Sh. K.C.
Chopra was not in sound disposing mind when they met at the bus stand and he
was suffering from various diseases.
19(ii)(b). In cross examination, he stated that he did not know the full name of
Sh. K.C. Chopra and knew him by his caste only. He replied that Sh. K.C.
Chopra used to travel by bus. He replied that only because of the incident of
stating wrong number of the bus, he assumed that Sh. K.C. Chopra had lost his
mental balance.
19(ii)(c). The testimony of PW1 reflects that he is a biased witness and did not
depose the true facts. Merely becuase Sh. K.C. Chopra was misguided by
someone to board a wrong bus, PW1 assumed that he had lost his mental
balance. PW1 did not disclose the basis to state that late Sh. K.C. Chopra was
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 13/24
unable to differentiate between right and wrong. PW1 stated that the deceased
was not in ‘sound disposing mind’ when he met him at the bus stand and was
suffering from various diseases. His deposition seems to be more to satisfy the
technincal legal language than a recounting of actual facts. The choice of words
‘sound disposing mind’ in the testimony of PW1 reflects that he was tutored by
someone to speak in a legal language than to focus on deposition of facts, in
order to disqualify the testator late Sh. K.C. Chopra from making a Will. PW1
did not bother to elaborate what physical or mental diseases he observed the
testator to be suffering from. His testimony is otherwise scarcely relevant as it
pertains to an undated occasion that occurred around two months before the
death of Sh. K.C. Chopra. He offered no proof to substantiate his acquaintance
with late Sh. K.C. Chopra and his alleged meeting with him at a bus stop
around two months before his death. His testimony is worthy of discarding as
that of a tutored and interested witness.
19(iii)(a). PW7 Satish Chopra and PW8 K.K. Chopra are real brothers of
plaintiff Atul Mani Chopra. PW7 Satish Chopra deposed that 45 months prior
to his death, his uncle Sh. K.C. Chopra had fallen and was not keeping good
health and was not of stable mind. Sh. K.C. Chopra had been calling him by
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 14/24
wrong name and had started talking irrelevant things. PW8 K.K. Chopra merely
stated that his uncle Sh. K.C. Chopra had not been keeping good health prior to
his death and was not in a position to speak or put his signature. He used to
remain bed ridden. PW7 did not substantiate his testimony by any medical
record regarding the alleged fall of Sh. K.C. Chopra 45 months prior to his
death due to which he lost his health and stability of mind. The testimony of
PW8 is very general and lacks the specific details. In their testimonies, PW7
and PW8 admitted that prior to his death Sh. K.C. Chopra used to manage his
tax returns and bank accounts on his own, without any assistance. He used to
sign his cheques on his own. That being so, it is a reflection on soundness of
physical and mental health of Sh. K.C. Chopra, rather than absence thereof.
19(iii)(b). It is undisputed fact that late Sh. K.C. Chopra used to live alone and
managed his daily affairs himself, without any assistance. Neither plaintiff Atul
Mani Chopra nor defendant Smt. Adarsh Bhalla lived with late Sh. K.C.
Chopra. There is no proof that Sh. K.C. Chopra was on medication prior to his
death or was ever hospitalized before 10/01/1989. There is nothing on record to
substantiate that late Sh. K.C. Chopra was not of sound disposing mind or was
unable to put his signature on 04/01/1989, when he executed the alleged Will.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 15/24
Issue no. (i), is therefore, decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the
defendants.
20. Issue No. (ii): Did late Col. K. C. Chopra execute any Will on 04/01/1989?
20(i). Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, deals with the execution of
unprivileged Wills and provides that the testator shall sign or shall affix his
mark to the Will so that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give
effect to the writing as a Will. The Will shall be attested by two or more
witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will
or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or
mark; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the
testator but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the
same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
20(ii). The Will in question in this case i.e. the Will dated 04/01/1989, Ex.
DW3/3, has been shown to be attested by two witnesses namely Sh. R.L.
Chaudhary and Major K.S. Verma (Retd.). However, both the said witnesses
had already expired before testifying in this case. DW3 Sh. Manu Bhalla relied
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 16/24
upon the certified copy of statement Ex. DW2/5 of Major K.S. Verma (Retd.)
recorded in case titled as Munish Bhalla Anr. Vs. Smt. Adarsh Bhalla, Sh
Atul Mani Chopra and Sh. K.C. Chopra Son for specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 16/12/1985. In the said case, Major K.S. Verma (Retd.)
deposed as PW2 and was cross examined at length. He deposed in cross
examination that late Col. K.C. Chopra had executed the Will Ex. PW2/D1 in
January, 1989, and signed it at point B. He stated that he signed it as an
attesting witness at point A. He identified the signature of late Col. K.C. Chopra
at point B and stated that the Will was executed by Col. K.C. Chopra in sound
and disposing mind, of his own free will. He replied that the Will was executed
at the house of testator Col. K.C. Chopra.
20(iii). Although, attesting witness Major K.S. Verma (Retd.) testified
regarding the execution of Will dated 04/01/1989, Ex. DW2/D1, his testimony
cannot be read in this case as the question in issue in the case in which he
deposed was substantially different from the issue involved in the present case
(see proviso to Section 33, Indian Evidence Act, 1872); that case pertained to
specific performance of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by late Col.
K.C. Chopra in favour of plaintiffs Mr. Munish Bhalla and Mr. Manu Bhalla,
whereas, the present case pertains to the question if late Col. K.C. Chopra had
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 17/24
executed the Will dated 04/01/1989, that too, in sound disposing mind.
20(iv). Defendants examined DW4 Smt. Uma Devi, daughterinlaw of late
Major K.S. Verma to prove the Will dated 04/01/1989. She identified the
signature of her fatherinlaw late Major K.S. Verma on the Will Ex. DW3/3.
She deposed that her fatherinlaw was close friend of late Col. K.C. Chopra,
whom she also knew since the year 1970, after her marriage. She stated that she
alongwith her fatherinlaw and her husband used to meet Col. K.C. Chopra
regularly. She stated that her fatherinlaw had told her during his lifetime that
testator Col. K.C. Chopra had called him to sign as a witness to his Will. She
stated that her fatherinlaw expired on 21/04/1998. She deposed that she had
seen her father in law signing and writing. She deposed that she resided with
him in his family as daughterinlaw. She denied the suggestion that the Will
dated 04/01/1989 had been forged by the perSon (sic) and by the beneficiary
after demise of Col. K.C. Chopra on 14/01/1989. There is no reason to doubt
her testimony that she had seen her father in law Major K.S. Verma (Retd.)
signing and writing as she had lived with him in his home as daughter in law.
Her testimony is admissible in proof of attestation of the Will Ex. DW3/3 by
witness Major K.S. Verma (Retd.) under Section 69 of The Indian Evidence
Act, 1872.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 18/24
20(v). Plaintiff perfunctorily objected to the genuineness of the execution of
Will Ex. DW3/3 by testator late Col. K.C. Chopra and by attesting witness late
Major K.S. Verma but did not seek to point out that their signatures on the Will
looked forged and fabricated when compared with their signatures on disputed
documents. No request was made by the plaintiff for appointment of
handwriting expert to analyse and report about the genuineness of signature of
testator and attesting witness on the Will dated 04/01/1989. The Court does not
find that there was any suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will Ex.
DW3/3, as pointed out by the plaintiff. On the other hand, DW4 Smt. Uma Devi
proved attestation of the Will Ex. DW3/3 by her fatherinlaw Major K.S.
Verma (Retd.); her evidence being next best available evidence as the attesting
witnesses were no longer alive to prove the due execution of Will Ex. DW3/3.
Issue no. (ii) is, therefore, decided in favour of the defendants and against the
plaintiff.
21. Issue No. (iii): Did late Col. K. C. Chopra had (sic) no capacity to execute
the Will, if any, of 04/01/1989 in respect of property no. C354, Defence
Colony, New Delhi?
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 19/24
21(i)(a). The plaintiff asserted that, although, late Col. K.C. Chopra was owner
of property no. C354, Defence Colony, New Delhi, in 1996 he had converted it
into an HUF property of M/s. K.C. Chopra Son of which he was karta,
whereas, plaintiff was the coparcener. The plaintiff examined PWs 4 and 5 to
prove that property no. C354, Defence Colony, New Delhi, was assessed as
HUF property of M/s. K.C. Chopra Son for the purpose of income tax and
wealth tax returns. Due to this reason, late Col. K.C. Chopra could not have
bequeathed property no. C354 (supra) by way of the Will challenged in this
case.
21(i)(b). The status of plaintiff as coparcener of M/s. K.C. Chopra Son
(HUF) depends upon the proof of his status as adopted son of late Col. K.C.
Chopra. Plaintiff asserted that he was adopted by late Col. K.C. Chopra as his
own son. Plaintiff lived with his adoptive father late Col. K.C. Chopra in his
childhood; in the school admission record of the plaintiff, the name of his father
has been mentioned as Col. K.C. Chopra; similarly, in his service record too,
the name of his father has been mentioned as Col. K.C. Chopra. PW7 Satish
Chopra and PW8 K.K. Chopra, real brothers of the plaintiff, deposed that late
Col. K.C. Chopra had adopted plaintiff Atul Mani Chopra as his son.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 20/24
21(i)(c). PW7 replied in cross examination that his mother told him that his
brother Atul Mani Chopra was adopted by his uncle late Col. K.C. Chopra. He
replied that his parents did not disclose any further details about the adoption.
He replied that he was not aware of the year of adoption of the plaintiff and he
came to know of the adoption when he was in 10 th standard. He replied that he
had not seen any Adoption Deed regarding the adoption of the plaintiff. He did
not know if any ceremony of adoption was performed. Similarly, PW8 replied
in cross examination that he was told by his mother that his elder brother Atul
Mani Chopra was given in adoption even before PW8 was born. He replied that
he did not have any personal knowledge of the adoption. Both, PW7 and PW8
replied that they never informed their mother about the Court case relating to
adoption of their brother Atul Mani Chopra by Col. K.C. Chopra. They denied
the suggestion that plaintiff was only brought up and educated by late Col. K.C.
Chopra. They replied that they did not inform the plaintiff that their adoptive
father Col. K.C. Chopra fell down and was admitted in hospital with ill health.
They replied that they informed defendant Smt. Adarsh Bhalla only, who was
the daughter of Col. K.C. Chopra.
21(i)(d). Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhusudan Das Vs. Narayanibai Ors.
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 21/24
(1983) 1 SCC 35 held that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession
to property by allegeding an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon
him by proof of the factum of adoption and its validity. For a valid adoption,
the physical act of giving and taking is an essential requisite, a ceremony
imperative in all adoptions, whatever the caste. This requisite is satisfied in its
essence only by actual delivery and acceptance of the boy, even though there
exists an expression of consent or an executed deed of adoption. The object of
corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obeviously to secure due
publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have a formal ceremony. No
particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law requires that the
natural parents shall hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parents shall
recieve him [see Section 11(vi) of The Hindu Adoptions Maintenance Act,
1956]. The nature of the ceremony may vary depending upon the circumstance
of the case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving and taking shall be part of
it.
21(i)(e). No evidence was adduced in the present case to the effect that the
ceremony of giving and taking of the plaintiff in adoption was performed by his
natural parents and by Col. K.C. Chopra and his wife. Plaintiff started
examining witnesses to prove his case with effect from 27/06/1999 when PW1
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 22/24
Sh. O.P. Kohli was examined. The natural mother of plaintiff was alive at that
time. PW7 Satish Chopra deposed that his mother expired in the year 2006.
Plaintiff did not examine his mother for the reaSon best known to him to prove
that he was given in adoption by her to Col. K.C. Chopra. Hence, necessary
adverse inference shall be drawn against the plaintiff. In fact, plaintiff Atul
Mani Chopra himself stated in cross examination that no formal ceremony was
performed at the time of his adoption, neither did he know who were the
witnesses to the adoption. Plaintiff did not even know in which year he was
given in adoption by his natural parents to his adoptive father Col. K.C. Chopra.
Plaintiff did not complete his testimony but the admissions of facts in his
incomplete testimony can be considered against him.
21(i)(f). In view of absence of the requisite ceremony of giving and taking in
adoption the plaintiff utterly failed to prove that he was an adopted son of late
Col. K.C. Chopra. The plaintiff was neither natural nor adopted son of late Col.
K.C. Chopra. He could not be considered to be a coparcener of M/s. K.C.
Chopra Son (HUF). The mere fact that in the school records and service
record of the plaintiff, the name of his father has been mentioned as Col. K.C.
Chopra, he does not become the adopted son of Col. K.C. Chopra. The creation
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 23/24
of HUF M/s. K.C. Chopra Son by Col. K.C. Chopra also had to conform to
the legal requirement that it could be constituted between late K.C. Chopra and
his natural born son or adopted son. As observed hereinabove, the legal
requirement of proof of adoption remained unsatisfied. This being the situation,
the plaintiff could not raise any objection regarding capacity of late Col. K.C.
Chopra to execute the Will dated 04/01/1989 in respect of property no. C354,
Defence Colony, New Delhi, alleged to be an HUF property. Issue no. (iii) is
decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
22. Relief: In view of forgoing analysis and observation, the suit fails and is
dismissed. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for. No order for costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules after compliance of
necessary legal formalities. Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
VISHAL SINGH
Announced in open Court SINGH Date:
Dated: 29.08.2018 2018.08.29
16:38:18
+0530
(VISHAL SINGH)
Addl. District Judge06 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
New CS No. 9901/16 K.C. Chopra Anr. Vs. Mrs. Adarsh Bhalla Page No. 24/24
