Delhi District Court
Shri Ashok Kumar Goel vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi on 11 January, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANATAN PRASAD
SR. CIVIL JUDGE: DELHI
Suit No.140/99
In the matter of: -
Shri Ashok Kumar Goel,
Son of Shri Jai Diyal Goela,
R/o House No.4784/23, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi.
...Plaintiff
Versus
1. National Capital Territory of Delhi,
Through its Secretary/Chief Secretary,
Delhi Administration, Delhi.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Delhi
(Stamp Branch),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
Through Collector of Stamps,
Room No.361, IIIrd Floor, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
2
3. Superintending Surveyor of Works II,
Delhi Administration,
Public Works Department,
M.S.O. Building III Floor,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
...Defendants
Date of Institution : 21.12.1994
Date of Decision : 11.01.2007
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Present: Counsel for the plaintiff
JUDGMENT
The present suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff on the averments that his grand father Sh. Bishamber Dayal Goela, who was 3 the sole owner of property no.4784, 23 Darya Ganj, Delhi, vide a gift deed dated 22.1.87, duly registered upon the valuation of the property by a govt.approved valuer had gifted its 50% portion, as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint It has been further pleaded that value of the said portion was assessed at Rs.33000/- at that time but in the year 1989, recovery proceedings were initiated agianst him by the defts. by assessing the value of suit property at Rs.51600/- and in the meanwhile, its value was reassessed as Rs.93700/-. The plaintiff was not accorded any opportunity of hearing before assessing the value and thereafter despite various representations etc. made by him, no heed to his request for considering the 4 initial value of Rs.33000/- was paid and thus the present suit was filed.
The defendants had earlier put in their appearance and filed written statement raising preliminary objections therein that the suit was not maintainable for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, having not been filed against UOI but the present defendants and that no notice u/s 80, CPC, was served before filing the present suit. On merits, it was submitted that gift deed was undervalued and no proper stamp duty was paid, on account of which the pltf. was called upon to make up the deficiency, and there was no malafide on the part of defendants in doing so and the plaintiff has filed this false and frivolous suit, which deserves 5 dismissal.
In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed his pleadings and denied the submissions made in the written statement by the defendant.
The defendants were, however, proceeded exparte vide order dt.27.5.02 on account of their failure to put in appearance in the case.
On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by my ld. predecessor vide order dated 20.8.05:-
1.Whether the suit is maintainable in view of preliminary objection no.1? OPP
2.Whether plaintiff has served any notice u/s 80 CPC before filing the present suit? If any, its effect.
3.Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration,as prayed for? OPP 6
4.Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of injunction as prayed for? OPP
5.Relief.
The plaintiff in order to prove his case tendered his own testimony by way of an affidavit, narrating the entire facts as pleaded in the plaint and proved the Gift deed in question alongwith the site plan as Ex.PW.1/1, letter dated 7.7.88 received by him from the office of deft.no.2 regarding undervaluation of the gift deed as Ex.P.W.1/2, copy of reply filed by him to this letter as Ex.PW.1/3, copy of letter dated 12.9.89, requiring him to appear before the Collector of stamps on 18.9.89 and show cause notice in this regard as Ex.PW.1/4 and Ex.PW.1/6, respectively and copy of his reply 7 to it as Ex.PW.1/5 and copies of representation and other letters filed by him before the Collector as Ex.PW.1/7 and Ex.PW.1/10, postal receipts and AD card as Ex.PW1/10A & Ex.PW1/10B and copies of other correspondence done between him and the department as Ex.PW.1/11 to Ex.PW.1/26 and postal receipts and AD cards etc. as Ex.PW.1/12A, 12B, Ex.PW.1/16Aand 16B and Ex.PW.1/17A,1/19A, 19B, Ex.PW1/21A , 21B and Ex.PW1/23A and 1/23B and copy of the house tax record in respect of the property in question as Ex.PW1/27. He stated that his claim as made in the suit was correct and he was entitled for the same.
There is no cross examination to his testimony nor 8 there is any evidence in rebuttal, the defendant being ex- parte in this case.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff and scrutinized the entire documentary and oral evidence. I decide the above issues as under:-
Issues No.3 & 4.
Both these issues being the main issues, involving the real controversy between the parties and the defendant being ex-parte in this case after filing of their written statement, are being taken up first.
It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the gift deed Ex.PW.1/1 was legally and validly executed and 9 stamped by his grand father in respect of the portion of the property in question by getting its value assessed from a govt. approved valuer, to be at Rs.33,000/- and there was no objection at the time of its registration as regards its valuation and it was only for the first time that vide a letter dt.7.7.88 of deft.no.2, he was called upon that the gift deed was undervalued and that at one point of time, the value was assessed by them at Rs.51,600/- and subsequently, without assigning any reason, it was proposed to be assessed at Rs.93700/-. According to the plaintiff, these proceedings were initiated by the defts. only at the instance of his brother Vinod Kumar Goel who had filed complaint against him with a view to harass him. The gift deed was properly stamped on 10 the basis of prevailing value of the property in question to be at Rs.1100/- per sq.meter at the relevant time, as per Ministry of Urban Development letter dt.24.10.85. I have gone through the said letter and find that this document does not mention the rates as regards the properties situated in Darya Ganj but the rate so mentioned pertains to Ansari Market. The property in question is situated in Darya Ganj and thus the rates prescribed for the properties falling in Ansari Market area cannot be connected with that of Darya Ganj area and thus this plea of the plaintiff itself fails being unsubstantiated. The order regarding valuation of the property in question is in the form and nature of an administrative order and there is no question of any malafide 11 or arbitrary action on the part of any authority concerned of the defendants dealing with such matters. I find no force in the submission of the plaintiff that he was called upon as regards the undervaluation of the gift deed at the instance of his brother's complaint or with a view to harass him because in the administrative matters of govt., the opinion of any individual as regards the valuation of properties of different areas/localities are not taken into account but it is the govt.'s own policy. A bunch of documents has been placed and proved on record by the plaintiff in respect of correspondence between him and the deptt. as regards the dispute in question and thus the plaintiff's plea that he was not accorded any opportunity of hearing before assessing the 12 valuation of the property in suit is untenable and is hereby discarded. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he was entitled for decree of declaration and injunction, as prayed for in this suit. Both the issues are thus decided against him and in favour of defendants.
Issues Nos.1 & 2
The preliminary objections raised by the defts. in written statement was that the suit ought to have been filed against UOI and not the NCT of Delhi and that no mandatory notice u/s 80, CPC, was sent by the pltf. before filing the present suit. The defendants after filing the written statement, chose not to appear in this case resulting in 13 proceeding ex-parte against them. However, I am of the opinion that in view of issues no.3 & 4 the main issues, having been decided against the plaintiff, the issues 1 & 2 need no discussion and are decided accordingly. Relief In view of what has been held above, the present suit fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. File be consigned to record room after preparing the decree sheet.
Announced in open court (SANATAN PRASAD)
on this 11th day of January 2007 Sr. Civil Judge, Delhi
14
(Spare three copies attached)