Mukta Gupta JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The dispute in the present appeal is between the two sons of Late Sh.Mohinder Singh Verma.
2. The genealogy tree of family of Late Sh.Mohinder Singh Verma is as under:-
3. Late Sh. Mohinder Singh Verma (hereinafter referred to as the 'Deceased') instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession in the year 2007 against his son Mr.J.P.S. Verma and daughter- in-law (wife of his son J.P.S. Verma) in respect of ground floor of property bearing Municipal No.A-2/163, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit Property').
4. Needless to state, the deceased was the plaintiff and his son J.P.S. Verma and daughter-in-law Om Wati Verma were the defendants in the suit. Declaration sought was that registered Gift Deed dated June 10, 1997 executed by the plaintiff in favor of his daughter-in-law Om Wati i.e. defendant No. 2 in respect of suit property be declared null and void. Permanent injunction sought was that the defendants be permanently restrained from claiming any right, title or interest in the suit property. In addition thereto, the plaintiff also sought possession of the suit property from the defendants.
5. In our decision we shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the suit.
6. The case set up by the deceased plaintiff in the plaint filed by him has been broadly/succinctly noted by the Single Judge in the impugned judgment in following terms:-
"(i) that the plaintiff executed the Gift Deed aforesaid in favor of the defendant No. 2 under the undue influence of the two defendants being his son and daughter-in-law;
(ii) that the Gift Deed was subject to the conditions (a) that the plaintiff shall be entitled, throughout his life, to live in the front drawing room on the ground floor; and, (b) that the said house shall be given to the defendants' son Mr. Vikas Verma after his marriage;
(iii) that the defendants had emotionally blackmailed the deceased plaintiffs into executing the Gift Deed by representing that they did not have any immovable property and that their status in life will rise in society if they became owners of the ground floor and the same will also facilitate them in marrying their daughter after a few years;
(iv) that the defendants had also promised that they will look after the plaintiff very well, taking care of all his needs including food, shelter, clothing etc.;
(v) that after the execution of the Gift Deed, the defendants initially treated the plaintiff nicely as they were doing prior to the execution of the Gift Deed "but after few months" they started ignoring the plaintiff; the treatment meted out by the defendants to the plaintiff worsened "within a few months" and the defendants stopped giving food though the plaintiff continued to live in the........