Delhi District Court
Shri Balbir Singh vs Smt. Prakash Devi (Since Deceased) on 1 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 16
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No.567/14
I.D.No.02401C6053542004
Shri Balbir Singh, S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
4/21, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Prakash Devi (since deceased)
through her LRs:
a) Smt. Rupa Gujral (daughterinlaw)
W/o Late Shri Nand Lal Gujral
b) Shri Ashima Gujral (grandson)
S/o Late Shri Nand Lal Gujral
c) Shri Manish Gujral (grandson)
S/o Late Shri Nand Lal Gujral
All residents of 12B, Under Hill Lane,
Civil Lines, Delhi110006.
d) Mrs. Anu Bhalla (granddaughter),
W/o Dr. Tarun Bhalla,
C/o C52, Kailash apartments,
East of Kailash, New Delhi.
CS No.567/14 Balbir Singh Vs. Prakash Devi & Ors. Page No.1/5
e) Smt. Shashi Kakkar (daughter)
W/o Shri Ravinder Kakkar
R/o 31, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
2. M/s Natco Control,
3, Netaji Subhash Marg,
Daryaganj, Delhi.
3. Shri Ashok Sachdeva
S/o Shri Rattan Lal Sachdeva,
R/o A203, Defence Colony, New Delhi.
4. Shri Kailash Chand
S/o Shri Karam Chand
R/o D84, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi. .....Defendants
APPLICATION U/O 12 RULE 6 CPC AND SECTION 151 CPC
AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.4 SHRI KAILASH CHAND
O R D E R
1. The application moved by the LRs of the plaintiff U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC and Section 151 CPC dated 04.01.2005 for passing the decree against the defendant no.4 Sh. Kailash Chand shall be decided.
2. It is claimed in the application that the defendant no.4 who was added as a party later on has filed the written statement dated CS No.567/14 Balbir Singh Vs. Prakash Devi & Ors. Page No.2/5 02.03.2002 in which he has admitted the execution of agreement dated 22.02.1982 and has also stated that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement which could not be performed on account of noncooperation of defendant no.1. It is further submitted that the defendant no.4 has pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff is already in possession of substantial portion of the property and he has no objection to transfer his share in favour of the plaintiff. It is claimed that on account of admission of defendant no.4 the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of suit for specific performance of the agreement and he could be directed to transfer half undivided share in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The application is not contested by the defendant no.4 rather the remaining defendants have filed their replies objecting the same. It is submitted by the defendant no.1 that plaintiff and defendant no.4 are in collusion with each other to illegally obtain orders from the Court to adversely affect the rights and liability of the other parties to the suit. The defendant has also raised the objection that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. Similar are the objections raised by defendants no. 2 & 3.
4. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for decree of cancellation of a sale deed dated 16.01.1991 and specific performance of the CS No.567/14 Balbir Singh Vs. Prakash Devi & Ors. Page No.3/5 agreement dated 22.02.1982 and in the alternate the recovery of amount of Rs. 5 lacs on the grounds that defendant no.1 entered into an agreement dated 22.02.1982 with the plaintiff who was the owner of half of the suit property and that the sale deed was to be registered after obtaining necessary permission for sale if required and also after obtaining income tax clearance certificate and all other permissions required from any other authority concerned by the defendant. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendants no. 2 & 3 on 16.01.1991 in respect of her share in the suit property. Initially defendant no.4 Sh. Kailash Chand was not impleaded in the present suit on the submissions that he is ready and willing to honour the terms of the agreement to sell and is ready and willing to convey his share in the title of the suit property but later on he was impleaded as defendant in the suit on the application of the plaintiff.
5. The objections raised to the present application by the defendants no. 1 to 3 are not maintainable as the similar objections as raised by them has already been dealt by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2002. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court allowed the application moved by the plaintiff U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC subject to law of limitation to be considered on defence being filed by CS No.567/14 Balbir Singh Vs. Prakash Devi & Ors. Page No.4/5 Sh. Kailash Chand. The said orders has attained finality and defendant no.4 has not raised any defence to the suit rather has admitted the claim of the plaintiff in the written statement and has submitted that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants no.1 & 4 were the owners of the suit property in equal shares and the defendant no.1 has sold her share to defendants no. 2 & 3, the defendant no.4 cannot now be restrained to perform his part of agreement executed by him dated 22.02.1982. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the defendant no.4 cannot be considered collusive with the plaintiff.
6. In the facts and circumstances considering the admissions made by defendant no.4 Sh. Kailash Chand, the application moved by the plaintiff U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC is allowed and the present suit is decreed partly in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.4 who is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of his undivided share in suit property. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in Open Court (Sunil Chaudhary)
st
On 1 October, 2014 ADJ16 (Central) THC
Delhi.
CS No.567/14 Balbir Singh Vs. Prakash Devi & Ors. Page No.5/5