Renu Chowdry & Ors. v. Vivek Sharma & Ors.

1. This Application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking permission to place on record additional documents.

2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking partition of property bearing No.D-32, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Suit Property’). The Plaintiffs have also prayed for a declaration that the Will dated 16.07.2009, executed by the mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, is null and void. The Plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from selling, disposingoff or creating any third party rights in the Suit property.

3. The facts of the case reveals that the Suit Property was acquired by Late Shri Anand Prakash Sharma under a lease from the Land & Development Office on 22.10.1970 and was subsequently converted from leasehold to freehold in his name by a duly registered Conveyance Deed in February 2000. It is stated that Late Shri Anand Prakash Sharma passed away intestate on 21.10.2002, leaving behind six Class-I legal heirs, namely his widow Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma, three daughters (the Plaintiffs herein), and two sons (Defendants No. 1 and 2 herein). It is stated that upon his demise, the Suit Property devolved equally upon all six heirs in accordance with the law of intestate succession.

4. It is further stated that after the death of her husband, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma apprehended insecurity in respect of her residence, particularly on account of her limited fractional share in the Suit Property and the possibility of alienation by the other heirs. It is stated that in order to allay her concerns, the three daughters and Defendant No. 2 executed a registered Relinquishment Deed in her favour on 12.12.2003. Defendant NO. 1 also executing a similar Relinquishment Deed on 10.03.2004 relinquishing his share in the Suit Property in favour of Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma. Consequently, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma became the absolute owner of the Suit Property. It is stated that the Relinquishment Deeds were executed with an understanding within the family that the Suit Property would ultimately be shared equally amongst all the siblings after the lifetime of the mother, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma.

5. It is stated that after the death of Late Shri Anand Prakash Sharma, the Defendants No. 1 and 2 settled abroad in the United States of America and, as alleged, did not return to India to look after their ageing mother. It is stated that the Plaintiffs, being daughters and married, gave emotional and practical support to the mother by attending to her day-to-day needs, medical care, and companionship. It is stated that in November 2015, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma’s health deteriorated significantly, compelling Plaintiff No. 2 to shift to Faridabad for better care of the mother. It is stated that during this time, the Suit Property remained vacant and was periodically looked after by the Plaintiffs and their families.

6. It is stated that in the last week of January 2016, shortly before her death, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma disclosed to Plaintiff No. 2 that she had executed a Will dated 15.07.2009, which was prepared with the assistance of Defendant No. 3, who is the cousin of Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma. It is stated that Defendant No.3 was entrusted with the custody of the original Will and other important documents. It is stated that Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma allegedly represented that the said Will provided for equal distribution of her movable and immovable assets amongst all her children. It is stated that despite repeated requests by Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma during her lifetime, Defendant No. 3 failed to return the documents, including the original Will. It is stated that Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma passed away on 06.02.2016, leaving behind unresolved issues regarding custody and disposition of her estate.

7. It is stated that after the death of Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma, Defendant No. 3 forwarded a copy of the Will dated 15.07.2009 to Defendant No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2. It is stated that the contents of the said Will were shocking to the Plaintiffs, as it purportedly bequeathed the entire estate of Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma in favour of Defendant No. 1, contrary to the mother’s alleged oral representations and stated intentions that she wanted equal distribution of her movable and immovable assets amongst all her children. The Plaintiffs alleged collusion between Defendants No. 1 and 3, undue influence, and manipulation of an elderly and ailing testatrix, who was unfamiliar with English, rendering the Will suspicious and void in the eyes of law. It is stated that after the death of Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma, the Defendant No.1 was not even present to perform her last rites. It is stated that he came to India at a later stage.

8. It is stated that after the death of Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma, Defendant No. 3 handed over the original Will, jewellery, and certain bank and post-office documents to the wife of Defendant No. 1 in April 2017, despite objections and a legal notice issued by the Plaintiffs to this effect. It is stated that the Plaintiffs apprehended that Defendant No. 1 might alienate or create third-party interests in the Suit Property and encash financial instruments to their detriment and, therefore the present Suit was filed seeking a declaration that the Will dated 15.07.2009 is null and void; partition of the Suit Property by metes and bounds or by sale with equal distribution of proceeds; declaration of joint ownership; and permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating or creating third-party interests in the Suit Property and other assets.

9. Summons were issued in the Suit. Written Statements were filed. Issues have been framed and the Suit is at the stage of recording of evidence.

10. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking permission to place on record additional documents. It is stated in the Application that certain documents, though available since the inception of the Suit, were not brought on record earlier. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that during the pendency of the suit, upon reviewing the court record, they discovered that two documents, namely, an email dated 11.02.2016 allegedly sent by Defendant No. 1 to Plaintiff No. 2, and travel itinerary and reservation tickets purportedly evidencing Defendant No. 1’s visit to India from 14.02.2016 to 24.02.2016, were not a part of the record, despite allegedly being in possession of their erstwhile Counsel at the time of filing of the Suit. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that these documents are sought to be introduced at this belated stage on the ground that Defendant No. 1’s whereabouts and travel plans during February 2016 constitute a material issue in the broader controversy, particularly in relation to events following the demise of Late Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma and the conduct attributed to Defendant No. 1 in connection with the disputed Will and estate of Late Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma. It is stated in the Application that the omission to file these documents earlier was neither deliberate nor strategic but occurred due to an inadvertent oversight on the part of their erstwhile Counsel, and that they were under a bona fide belief that the same had already been filed along with other pleadings. It is stated that no prejudice would be caused to Defendant No. 1 if these documents are taken on record for the reason that Defendant No.1 is the author of the email and the beneficiary of the travel records.

11. A reply has been filed by the Defendants stating that the documents sought to be brought on record, were in possession of the Plaintiffs and they cannot be permitted to file these documents at this belated stage. In the opinion of this Court, the documents sought to be brought on record may not have much relevance to the issues framed by the Court. However, it is settled law that the Courts must be liberal in permitting the documents to be brought on record in order to ascertain as to whether the Defendant No.1 was aware of the development or not which might have a bearing on the relationship of the Defendant No.1 with his mother and as to whether the Defendant No.1 was aware about the death of the mother or not.

12. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present application deserves to be allowed. The primary duty of the Court is to ensure that the real controversy between the parties is effectively and completely adjudicated. Procedural provisions relating to filing of documents are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The power of the Court under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, is wide enough to permit additional documents to be taken on record even at a later stage, provided sufficient cause is shown and no irreparable prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The documents sought to be placed on record, namely the email dated 11.02.2016 sent by Defendant No. 1 to Plaintiff No. 2 and the travel itinerary/reservation tickets evidencing Defendant No. 1’s visit to India from 14.02.2016 to 24.02.2016, are prima facie relevant to the issues already framed in the Suit. The conduct, presence, and movements of Defendant No. 1 during the period immediately following the demise of Late Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Sharma have a direct bearing on the Plaintiffs’ case concerning the surrounding circumstances, conduct of the parties, and the allegations relating to the disputed Will. Relevance being the touchstone, exclusion of such material at this stage may result in an incomplete appreciation of facts.

13. Further, the Plaintiffs have furnished a plausible and bona fide explanation for the delay in filing the documents. It is their categorical case that the documents were handed over to the erstwhile Counsel at the time of filing of the Suit and that the omission to file them earlier occurred due to an inadvertent lapse on the part of the Counsel. Lapses attributable to Counsel, when adequately explained and not indicative of mala fides, ought not to be visited upon the litigant so as to non-suit them or deprive them of an opportunity to place relevant material before the Court.

14. This Court is also of the opinion that no serious prejudice will be caused to the Defendants by allowing the present Application. Defendant No. 1 is admittedly the sender of the email and the person whose travel itinerary is sought to be relied upon. Therefore, the documents cannot be said to be a surprise or alien to the knowledge of the Defendants. Any possible prejudice can, in any event, be adequately neutralised by granting the Defendants liberty to deal with, rebut, and cross-examine witnesses on these documents, including by leading additional evidence, if so advised. The mere fact that evidence has commenced does not, by itself, operate as an absolute bar to reception of additional documents, particularly when such reception subserves the ends of justice.

15. In view of the above, the present application is allowed.