In the Hon’ble court in the court of Ld.

Anuradha Jindal,
ACJ-CCJ-ARC, Dwarka Court Complex, South-West
Delhi
EXE/CIVIL/749/23
In the matter of:-

BalliRamS/oBadriPrasad nas Judgement Debtor

VERSUS

Sunita W/o Ram Chander . beces Decree Holder

INDEX
S.NO PARTICULARS | ___ Page no
01 COURT FEES 01
02 MEMO OF PARTIES 02
93 SYNOPSIS WITH BACKROUND 03-04
04 Application under order 21 rule 29 of the code of civil | 05-09
procedure, 1908
With supporting affidavit
08 Vakalatnama | 10

A of hi Lon

(Judgment debtor- Balli Ram)

Through

Adv. Deepak Singh

Mobile No.9205813302
New Delhi
Dated: 27.05.24
 Government of NCT of Dethi

e-Court Fee

District : South West Date & Time :26-MAY-2024 22:11:18

Establishment : Senior Civil Judge cum RC, South-West DWK

Stockholding Reference No : EPSDL2618051 122712203

Party Transaction No : NDLSW03202422161L

Name of litigant : BALLI RAM

e-Court Fee Receipt No : DLCT2621E2412W907

e-Court Fee amount : Rs. 5

( Rupees Five And Paise Zero Only)

TL DLCT2621E2412W907

Statutory Alert : The authenticity of this e-Court fee receipt should be verified at www.shcilestamp.com . Any
| discrepancy in the details on this receipt and as available on the website renders it invalid. In case of any
discrepancy please inform the Competent Authority. This receipt is required to be verified & locked by the
‘ Court official for further process in the Court.

Gok? <r
 In the Hon’ble court in the court of Ld. Anuradha Jindal,
ACJ-CCJ-ARC, Dwarka Court Complex, South-West
Delhi
EXE/CIVIL/749/23
In the matter of:-

BalliRam S/o Badri Prasad ign s Judgment Debtor

VERSUS

SunitaW/oRam Chander 222 ———easeeee Decree Holder

MEMO OF PARTIES
BALLI RAM
S/O SHRI BADRI
R/O B 2/11 KHASRA 30/11
BHARAT VIHAR, VILLAGE KAKRAULA
NEW DELHI -78 Judgment Debtor

VERSUS

SUNITA
W/O SHRI RAM CHANDER SINGH
R/O B 2/23, BHARAT VIHAR
- VILLAGE KAKRAULA NEW DELHI-78 Decree Holder

Q ol 1) de
(Judgement Debtor- Balli Ram)

Through

Adv. Deepak Singh

9205813302
New Delhi /
Dated: 27.05.24
In the Hon’ble court in the court of Ld. Anuradha Jindal,
ACJ-CCJ-ARC, Dwarka Court Complex, South-West
Delhi
EXE/CIVIL/749/23

Background:

The Judgment Debtor (JD) finds himself ensnared as the defendant/judgment-

debtor in the current execution case, stemming from a decree pronounced

against him in CS SCJ/426967/2016. Despite pursuing an appeal under RCA

CIVIL DJ ADJ No. 27/2023 for a fair resolution, JD's hopes were shattered
when the appeal was dismissed on April 25, 2024, by ADJ Ld. Richa Gosain. |

In a crucial observation recorded in Para 23 of the judgment, ADJ Ld. Richa

Gosain asserted that the Decree Holder (DH) could stake her claim to ownership |

solely based on the will, without relying on supplementary documentation.

However, JD vehemently contests this assertion, citing the Supreme Court

ruling in Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur and Others 1977 SCC (1) 369,

emphasizing the propounder's obligation to dispel alt legitimate suspicions

before a will is acknowledged as valid.

JD argues about the authenticity and validity of the will itself, pointing out that
it was signed: in suspicious circumstances, with the executor passing away

merely 08 days after signing, raising questions about timing and motives.

Additionally, the will fails to adhere to public policy by neglecting to provide

anything to the kin. Furthermore, to this day, the will has not been probated, and
the bequest remains unregistered, further casting doubt on its legitimacy.

This contention finds expression in the ongoing legal battle within CS

SCH/1127/2024, where JD has initiated a new cause of action. Here, the court
has already deemed the documents DH used to claim the property insufficient
due to improper registration. Given the balance of convenience favors JD, if his

qa] 4 U4 wl -
argument holds in this new case, DH's claim to the property through the will
might not withstand scrutiny, potentially rendering her claim void altogether.
Therefore this application for stay on the execution of the decree in

EXE/CIVIE/749/23 until the final disposal of CS SCJ/1127/2024

0 iw) ANH LH

(Judgment debtor- Balli Ram)

Through

Adv. Deepak Sjngh

Mobile No.920581330
hi
Dated: 27.05.24
In the Hon’ ble court in the court of Ld. Anuradha Jindal,
ACJ-CCJ-ARC, Dwarka Court Complex, South-West
Delhi
EXE/CIVIL/749/23
In the matter of:-

BalliRam S/o BadriPrasad — se Judgement Debtor

VERSUS

SunitaW/oRamChander } }4£ ss eseeeee Decree Holder

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 29 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908

Respectfully Showeth:

1. The will’s authenticity is contested by the Applicant, citing multiple

irregularities and suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

These include the testator's illiteracy, inconsistencies in witness

testimonies, and allegations of undue influence.

2. The will, being the central document supporting the decree-holder's

claim, is challenged under Sections 59 and 61 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925, on the grounds of the testator's mental capacity and possible
coercion.

3. The appellate court's dismissal of other documents, such as the ATS and
GPA, as insufficient to confer title to the suit property, shifts the focus
solely on the will's validity, necessitating a stay on execution pending its
adjudication.
Cy} ot Ata aly
4. Furthermore, the property subject to the will was not the self-acquired
property of Shiv Prasad, and the beneficiary named in the will is remote
to Shiv Prasad. As per the Supreme Court ruling in Jaswant Kaur v.
Amrit Kaur and Others 1977 SCC (1) 369, it is obligatory for the

propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before a will is accepted

as a valid last will of the testator.

5. The will contains complex medical terms, including hypertension, benign

prostatic hyperplasia, chronic renal failure, obstructive uropathy, and

hyperkalemia, despite Shiv Prasad's illiteracy. Such detailed medical

terminology suggests manipulation by the propounder of the will.

6. Shiv Prasad passed away merely 08 days after the alleged transaction,
raising suspicion regarding the timing and circumstances surrounding the
execution of the will. Moreover, the will contains contradictory

statements, affirming both extensive medical conditions and the

affirmation of sound health and disposing mind, indicating Shiv Prasad's

unsound health to contract.

7. Suspect Circumstances Surrounding Execution: The execution of the will

in question is enveloped in suspicious circumstances, as outlined by the
Supreme Court supra observation. These include questionable signatures,
doubts regarding the mental capacity of the testator, unfair disposition of
property, and the active involvement of the propounder who stands to

gant {°%
 benefit significantly from the will. Such circumstances inherently raise
suspicion about the genuineness of the will and necessitate thorough
scrutiny by the court.

8. Feeble Mind of the Testator: There are indications that the testator may
have been of feeble mind or compromised mental capacity at the time of
executing the will. This raises concerns about their ability to comprehend
the implications of the document and make informed decisions regarding
the disposition of their estate.

9. Unjust Disposition of Property: The terms of the will result in an unfair

and unjust distribution of the testator's estate, particularly concerning the
exclusion of rightful heirs who would ordinarily expect to receive a share.
Such inequitable provisions further contribute to the suspicion

surrounding the will's validity.

10.Each document falls under distinct legal frameworks, such as the Transfer
of Property Act for ATS and GPA, and the Registration Act 1908 for
registration requirements. The execution of a will must comply with the
Indian Succession Act. Treating these documents as a unified entity

overlooks their individual legal implications and statutory requirements,

undermining their distinct legal validity.

Clarification and Removal of Snag:

g ANF KT
It is imperative to address the clarification regarding Order 21 Rule 29. The rule
mandates that not only should there be a pending suit in the same court but also
it must be against the holder of a decree of that court. In this case, CS
SCJ/1127/2024, the pending suit, fulfills both criteria, being against the holder
of a decree of this very court. Hence, the application is in accordance with the
plain meaning of the rule.

Prayer:

In light of the foregoing grounds and the importance of a fair and just.
adjudication, the Applicant respectfully prays for:

a) A stay on the execution of the decree in EXE/CIVIL/749/23 until the

final disposal of CS SCJ/1127/2024, or until further orders.

b) Any other relief or order deemed fit and proper by this Honorable Court.

q ofl L(G Oe

(Judgment debtor- Bali Ram) ~

Through

Adv. Deepak Singh

Mobile fobs 330
ew Delhi —
“A

Dated: 27.05.24
 In the Hon’ble court in the court of Ld. Anuradha Jindal,
ACJ-CCJ-ARC, Dwarka Court Complex, South-West
Delhi
EXE/CIVIL/749/23
In the matter of:-

Balli Ram $ /o Badri Prasad sss Judgement Debtor

VERSUS

Sunita W/o Ram Chander eee Decree Holder

Affidavit:

I, Balli Ram, son of Badri Prasad, aged 51 years, residing at B2/11 Bharat
Vihar, Kakraula, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. 1am the applicant in the accompanying application under Order 21 Rule

29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
© 2. The contents of the accompanying application are true and correct to the
a ;
yy § best of my knowledge and belief.
O ¢?
S' <¢ 3. No part of this affidavit is false, and nothing material has been concealed
é. os
8 therefrom. Gate Sn

ion
Og (DEPONENT)
go ss = -VERIFICATION: 27 MAY 2004
cot 4
o
ag} Verified at New Delhion May 24 that the contents of the above affidavit
are true and correct and nothing has been concealed therein.

Ta) ad
(DEPONENT)

by Shrl/Smit .
ern ati fephdite seus
3 1 OFWM ee il!: Pv eavardeCosponrs
Suesewcvecuwecosenceuoatas
that the cantenis of ¢ ‘
been read & axplained to him ara dry
=

correct ta nis knowledge,

INTHE countor LA, Adm. Civil dude. Comm ha (let Conhesl| v
Suit / Appeal No. cE "4 C AVAL EO 20% JURISDICTION OF 202
inre:
S ee AN ro Plaintiff(s) 6, Petitioner(s)
Appellant(s) Complainant(s)

VERSUS

(L a\ \ t bar __Defendant(s) /Respondent(s) / Accused

: a) :
KNOW ALL to whom these present shall come that I/ We WB a\\ \ Os

The above named Turd Omnevd Del tov , do hereby appoint

bdy, Deepal. etna
“4 METRO LAW ASSOCIATES
E-10, LHS Bharat Vihar
Kakraula New Delhi - 110078
Email: [email protected]
Mob : 9205813202
(herein after called the advocate/s to be my/our Advocate in the above-noted case authorize him:-
To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in. this court or in any other court in which the same may be tried
or heard and also in the appellate court including High court subject to payment of fees separately for eect *'y> me/us.
0° sign file, verify and present pleadings, appeals cross-objections or petitions for a % ;
executions review, revision, withdrawal, compromise or other petitions or affidavits or other
documents as may be deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution of the said case in all its
stages subject to payment of fees for each stage. a
To file and take back documents, to admit and/or deny thé‘docuiments or opposite party.
To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any differences or
disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case.
To take execution proceedings on paying separate fee.
To deposit, draw and receive money, cheques, case and grant receipts hereof and to
do ail other acts and things which may be necessary to be done for the progress and in the
course of the prosecution on the said case.

To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitioner authorizing him to exercise the power ui a tority hereby
conferred upon the Advocate whenever he may think fit to do so and to sign the power of attorney on our behalf.
And I/ We thé undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and: confirm all acts done by the Advocate: or
his substitute in the matter as my/our own facts, as if. done by me/us to all intents and purpose..
And IMWe undertake that I/ We or my/our duly authorised agent would appear in court and all hearings
and will inform the Advocate for appearance
when the caseis called.
And I/We undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate of his substitute responsible for the result of
the said case. The adjournment costs whenever ordered by the court shall be of the Advocate which he shall receive
and retain for himself.
And {/We undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the whole or part of the fee agreed by me/us to be
paid to the advocate remaining unpaid he shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said case until the
same is paid up. The fee settle is only for the above case and above Court. I/We hereby agree that once the fee _ is
paid,l/We will not be entitled for the refund of the same in any case whatsoever and if the case prolongs for
more than 3 years the original fee shail be paid again by me/us ;
INWITHNESS WHERE OF |I/Wedohereunto set my/our hand to these presents the contents of which have

Accepted subject to the terms of the fees

Client Client
Ale AM
Advocate ie “TRO L HS ort UB Riry the Signature/Thumb Impression of the Below Mentioned Person,
Kaka he elhi - 410078 Who Has been Signed in my presence. The Client.
irmail : 4 tes@gmail com
Mob: 9205943302