Delhi District Court
Amarjeet Singh vs . Delhi Development Authority And Ors. on 24 September, 2022
1
Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL, CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No:- 402/17
Date of Institution: 13.04.2017
Date of Decision: 24.09.2022
Sh. Amarjeet Singh Chera
S/o Late Sh. Jagir Singh
R/o 98, Saini Enclave,
Vikas Marg, Delhi
..............Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman
Vikas Minar INA,
New Delhi.
2. The Saini Co-operative House
Building Society Ltd.
Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi through Its Secretary
.............Defendants.
Present : None.
JUDGMENT :-
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant no 1 to mutate the property i.e. 98, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi (hereinafter called as suit property) and also seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their employees to change the status of the suit property or to create any encumbrance.
Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
2
Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
Case of Plaintiff :-
1. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that the father of the plaintiff i.e. Late Sh. Jagir Singh became the member of the society i.e. defendant no.2 and was alloted the suit property by the defendant no.1. That on the death of Late Sh.
Jagir Singh on 17.05.1981, the suit property was mutated by D1 in the name of Late Smt. Shiv Kaur being nominee with D2. That the plaintiff was residing in the suit property after its construction since 1988 and he is the nominee of Late Smt. Shiv Kaur since 1989 with D2. That Late Smt. Shiv Kaur left for heveanly abode on 29.07.2002. That the defendant no.2 by its resolution dated 28.01.2004 transferred the membership of the society i.e. defendant no.2 in the name of the plaintiff with the direction to approach D1 for necessary mutations in his name. That the defendant no.2 apprised the defendant no.1 about the transfer of membership in the name of the plaintiff by the defendant no.2 giving details of transfer in the letter dated 26.11.2012. That the defendant no.1 asked the plaintiff to comply with all the requisite documents for transfer of mutation in the name of plaintiff which the plaintiff undertook and adhered to the instructions. The said documents were duly received by D1 on 17.04.2013. That the defendant no.1 despite of best efforts of the plaintiff to apprise D1 again and again in person and seeking assurance of the same could not seek the mutation of the suit property in his name till date. That the plaintiff, left with no option, served a legal notice on the defendant no.1 to apprise the D1 of his obligation of not acting as per rule book and depriving of him of his legal right. The defendant no.1 after being served of legal notice, neither carried out the mutation of the suit property in the name of plaintiff nor has replied the said Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 3 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
notice. Thus, having left with no other option, the plaintiff approached the Court.
Case of Defendant No.1:-
2. In its WS, defendant no.1 has taken preliminary objections regarding non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the brother of the plaintiff namely Harinder Pal Singh and regarding suppression of material facts. It is stated that the plaintiff was asked by defendant no.1 to provide relinquishment deed of Harinder Pal Singh in his favour or to jointly apply for mutation. That the plaintiff was insisting upon nomination by her mother, which was not in accordance to the policy of defendant no.1 That said Harinder Pal Singh had previously applied for conversion of the suit property into freehold on the basis of GPA and agreement to sell in his favor executed by their mother and accordingly, conveyance deed was executed in favor of Harinder Pal Singh with respect to suit property however, the same was cancelled on 07.09.2012 in pursuance of judgement of the court. That there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintifftiff. In reply on merits, it is admitted as a matter of record that after death of Jagir Singh, who was original allottee, mutation was allowed in favour of Smt.Shiv Kaur, the mother of the plaintiff vide letter dated 31.03.1982 and again, the death of the mother of plaintiff is also stated to be matter of record. Again, it is also admitted that present defendant had asked the plaintiff to comply with all the formalities of mutation, however, it is stated that plaintiff did not comply with the formalities. All the other averments of plaint are denied and it is prayed that suit be dismissed with cost.
Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
4
Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
Case of Defendant No.2 :-
3. In its WS, the defendant no.2 has taken the preliminary objection that in the suit no.60/2004, titled as " Harinder Pal Singh V. Amarjeet Singh", it was held by the court that late Sh. Jagir Singh was holding the lease hold rights of the property and had died intestate and after his death, the said rights had devolved upon all his legal heirs and his wife did not become exclusive owner of the suit property. It is further stated that after death of Smt. Shiv Kaur, the plaintiff is not the approved owner of the suit property and all legal heirs of Late Sh. Jagir Singh are the co-owner of the property in question. It is stated that nomination by late Smt. Shiv Kaur in favour of plaintiff is only with respect to the membership of defendant no.2 and not with respect to the property. In reply on merits, the averments of the preliminary objections are reiterated and it is also admitted that membership of the society was transferred in favour of the plaintiff, however, all the other averments of the plaint are denied.
Replication of the Plaintiff:-
4. In the replication, filed to the WS of D1, it is stated that D1 is hand in gloves with the brother of the plaintiff, as he was employee of D1 and that now the brother of the plaintiff had become the citizen of Canada. It is stated that plaintiff is on the equal footing of her mother, in whose favour the mutation was done, as she being the nominee of her husband and that D1 cannot be allowed to discriminate. The allegation raised by the plaintiff against his brother and the Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 5 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
averments of the plaint are reiterated. In the replication to the WS of D2, it is stated that the suit no.60/2004 was filed by the brother of the plaintiff for possession and mesne profits of the suit property. It is stated that plaintiff never asked for ownership of the suit property and again, the averments of the plaint are reiterated.
Issues :-
5. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed vide order dt. 28.01.2010 :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for in prayer no.A? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer no.B? OPP
3. Whether the suit is barred for non joinder of Sh. Harinder Pal Singh as a necessary party to the suit? OPD1
4. Whether there is no cause of action as against defendant no.2 filing of the present suit? OPD2
5. Relief Plaintiff's Evidence:-
6. To prove his case, the plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 by tendering his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and also tendered some documents as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/H including the site plan, copy of lease deed, copy of death certificate of Smt. Shiv Kaur, some letters, legal notice, and receipt. The Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 6 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
plaintiff was duly cross examined on behalf of D1 and D2 and thereafter the evidence was closed on behalf of the plaintiff vide separate statement dated 07.07.2019.
Defendant's Evidence:-
7. To resist the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1, examined its Deputy Director namely R.S. Meena, who stepped into the witness box as DW1 and that apart has relied upon two documents:-
Ex.D1W1/1(Colly) The guidelines for transfer/mutation of residential plots.
Ex.D1W1/2 Cancellation of conveyance deed issued in favour of
(Colly) Harinder Pal Singh.
Again, defendant no.2 examined his Secretary namely
Jagmohan as DW2 who further relied upon the copy of judgment dated 29.07.2007 in suit no.60/2004, which was placed on record as Ex.DW2/1.
The witnesses were duly cross examined on behalf of plaintiff and thereafter the evidence was closed on behalf of the defendants.
8. It is pertinent to mention that an application under Section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of plaintiff at the final stage for expunging the document Ex.PW1/DX2. The arguments on the said application have been advanced along with final arguments only. It has been argued that the said document, which is the policy document of defendant no.1, was put in the cross examination of plaintiff/PW1, however, the same has not been admitted by the Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 7 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
plaintiff and accordingly, cannot be taken on record as an admitted document. On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for defendant no.1 that said document has been also relied upon by the witness examined on behalf of defendant no.1 in his examination-in-chief. Heard. File perused and it is clear that said document has not been admitted by the plaintiff in his cross- examination. In these circumstances, it is made clear that said document is taken on record not as being admitted by the plaintiff but as relied upon by defendant no.1 only. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
9. The rival contentions raised by the Ld. counsel for both the parties have been heard and the material available on record in the file along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the plaintiff has been carefully and minutely perused and my issue-wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 110. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that suit property was allotted by defendant no.1 to the father of plaintiff namely Late Jagir Singh and that in the sub-lease deed i.e. Mark PW1/B was executed in his favour. That after his death, same was mutated in the name of the mother of the plaintiff namely Smt. Shiv Kaur, being his nominee, by the defendant no.2 vide document Ex.DW1/PX1. That since the construction of the property in 1988, the plaintiff has been residing in the said property and he is also the nominee of the late mother who died on 29.07.2002. That, the plaintiff was granted the membership of the defendant no.2 Society as being the nominee of the late mother vide Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 8 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
document Ex.PW1/D and the request for mutation of the property in the name of the plaintiff were sent by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 vide document Ex.PW1/E. That no due certificate was also given by defendant no.2 in favor of the plaintiff vide document Ex.PW1/H. That as defendant no.1 did not comply with the request of defendant no.2 and also of the plaintiff, the legal notice i.e. Ex.PW1/G was given to defendant no.1 but to no avail and therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit.
11. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the mutation was done by defendant no.1 in favor of the late mother of the plaintiff, as she was the nominee of her husband, and similarly, the plaintiff is the nominee of the late mother and therefore, the defendant no.1 is under the mandate to mutate the property in the name of the plaintiff, on the same grounds. It is further argued that the nomination by the later mother in the name of the plaintiff is not disputed by either of the defendants. It is further argued that the plea taken by defendant no.1 that the plaintiff was required to seek NOC or relinquishment from the brother of the plaintiff, as per the policy document of defendant no.1, cannot be relied upon, as the defendant no,1 has failed to prove if the said policy was effective at the time of the death of the mother of the plaintiff. That the witness examined on behalf of defendant no.1 as D1W1 in his cross- examination has failed to depose when the said policy came into existence. It is argued that said policy document has been filed only to mislead the court.
12. It is further contended that by way of the present suit, the plaintiff has not sought the declaration of any title in his favor, and mutation has been sought only for purpose of convenience, so as to enable the plaintiff to file the taxes of Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 9 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
the property and for the welfare of the property. It is argued that by way of mutation, no title is conferred upon the plaintiff. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon some judgments including 1) Ram Gopal Singh Sisodiya Vs. Union of India 196 (2013) DLT 675 ; 2) Rajender Singh Vs. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 368; 3) Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2015) 16 SCC 689; 4) Bhimbai Mahadev Vs. Arthur Import and Export Co. (2019) 3 SCC 191; 5) Jitender Singh Vs. State of MP and Ors, SLP No.13146/2021 dt. 06.09.2021.
13. On the other hand, it has been argued by counsel for defendants no.1 and 2 that after the death of the mother of the plaintiff, the property devolved upon the plaintiff as well as his brother namely Harinder Pal Singh, and accordingly, the mutation could be done jointly in favor of the plaintiff and his brother and not solely in the name of the plaintiff. It is further argued that the policy document of defendant no.1 i.e. Ex.PW1/DX2 has not been challenged by the plaintiff in any manner and no declaration has been sought regarding the validity of the said policy. That as per the policy of defendant no.1, the plaintiff was required to seek either NOC or relinquishment of the share in his favor from his brother and the defendant no.1 cannot be compelled by the plaintiff to do mutation against the policy. It is further argued that if at one point in time, the mutation was done in the name of the mother of the plaintiff only on the basis of nomination, it cannot be a ground for doing the same again, despite being in violation of the policy document. It is further contended that regarding the entitlement of the brother of the plaintiff namely Hairnder Pal Singh in the suit property, findings were also given by the civil court in the judgment i.e. Ex.PW1/DX1 and said judgment was duly upheld by the Ld. Appellate Court.
Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
10
Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
Accordingly, it is submitted that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction.
14. Before going into the rival contentions of both parties, let me discuss relevant law on the subject in question. As the mother of the plaintiff has expired in the year 2002, the relevant law with respect to the Cooperative Society is the relevant law herein is the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 read with the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973. The relevant provision of the said act is Section 26 which reads as under:
26. Transfer of interest on the death of members - On the death of a member a co-operative society may transfer the share or interest of the deceased member to the person nominated in accordance with the rules made in this behalf, or, if there is no person so nominated, to such person as may appear to the committee to be the heir or legal representative of the deceased member, or pay to such nominee, heir or legal representative, as the case may be, a sum representing th value of such member's share or interest as ascertained in accordance with the rules or bye-laws:
15. On perusal of the said provision, it is very clear that the law provided for the transfer of the 'share' to the nominated person, after the death of the member of the society. Admittedly, the father of the plaintiff namely Late Jagir Singh was a member of the defendant no.2 Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 11 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
society and he had nominated the mother of the plaintiff namely Late Smt. Shiv Kaur and she were made the member of the Society and thereafter, admittedly, the plaintiff has been made a member of the said Society on the basis of the nomination made by the late mother of the plaintiff. Now, the compliance of said provision has been admittedly made by defendant no.2 Society and no relief has been sought by the plaintiff against defendant no.2 in this regard. Rather, the case of the plaintiff is that his name should be mutated in the record of defendant no.1/ DDA in place of his mother, as he was nominated by his mother. In this regard, it is to observe that said provision provides only for the transfer of the 'share' of the deceased in favor of the nominee by the 'Society, and said provision cannot be contemplated to cover any other statutory authority. Accordingly, on the basis of the said provision, the DDA cannot be directed to mutate the name of the plaintiff in place of the name of his mother in the record of the DDA and certainly, the same can be done only as per the rules and regulations of DDA itself.
16. Going one step further, it is to observe that the contention on behalf of the plaintiff is that the policy document of the defendant no.1 DDA, placed on record as Ex.PW1/DX2 cannot be relied upon, as not being proved. That it is an electronic printout and is not being supported by the certificate u/s 65 B of the IEA. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the admissibility of the policy document Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 12 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
cannot be questioned by counsel for the plaintiff for two reasons discussed in succeeding paragraph.
17. Firstly, when the said document was relied upon by the witness examined on behalf of defendant no.1 as D1W1 in his examination- in-chief, the same was not objected on behalf of the plaintiff, and rather application u/s 151 CPC, as discussed above, was moved for expunging the document solely on the ground of admission by the plaintiff. Accordingly, this plea cannot be taken at the stage of final arguments. In this regard, reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Siddharth Kumar Vs. Alok Kumar in RSA No.77/2016, passed on 08.09.2017. Secondly, it is to observe that defendant no.1, DDA has substantially relied upon the said policy document Ex.PW1/DX2 and it has been passionately argued by Ld. counsel for defendant no.1 that the mutation of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff could be done only as per the guidelines of the said policy document and if the plaintiff would have complied with the requirements of said policy documents, the mutation could have been done in favor of the plaintiff; however, at no point of time, it has been the case of the plaintiff that said policy document was void or that said policy document was not applicable in the case of the plaintiff. It is to observe that the policy document of any Executive Department is in the nature of delegated legislation and the legality of the same cannot be adjudicated by the civil court and rather is the subject matter of Writ jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 13 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
Courts or Hon'ble Apex Court. Rather, on the other hand, said document is admissible under Section 78(1) of IEA. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the claim of the plaintiff for mutation in the name of the plaintiff regarding the suit property in the record of DDA has to be seen in view of the said policy document only.
18. Now, the perusal of the said policy document clearly provides that for mutation of a residential plot in death cases, where no Will was left by the allottee/lessee/sub-lessee, some documents were required to be submitted by the applicant including an affidavit, indemnity bond, and relinquishment deed. The proforma of the affidavit provides the columns for details of the legal heirs of deceased allottee/lessee/sub-lessee. Again, the proforma of indemnity bond is to a similar effect requiring the details of all the legal heirs and lastly, the relinquishment deed is meant for the situation, wherein, one of the legal heirs has relinquished his claim in the property in question in favor of the applicant. Accordingly, it can be firmly contemplated that the intention behind the said policy document for mutation is very clear to the effect that the interest in the suit property of all the legal heirs of the deceased is safeguarded. Now, in the present case, admittedly there is one brother of the plaintiff namely Harinder Pal Singh, who is also the legal heir of the deceased mother of the plaintiff and no relinquishment deed has been ever executed by said brother in favor of the plaintiff. Accordingly, as per the policy document of defendant no.1/DDA, the plaintiff has no right to seek Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 14 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
mutation of the suit property in his own name, without obtaining the relinquishment deed of the share of his brother in his own favor.
19. Now let me also advert to the contention of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff regarding the effect of the mutation. The main thrust of the counsel for the plaintiff is that the mutation does not confer any title and it is merely a convenience offered by the law to the plaintiff for discharging his dutiful obligations towards the suit property with respect to various taxes as well as amenities connected, so as to enjoy the suit property. In this regard, the counsel has emphatically relied upon the judgments, as mentioned above. It is to observe that all the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff pertain to the "mutation in the revenue record", however, this is not the case of the suit property. Accordingly, all these judgments relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Rather, on the other hand, it is to observe that mutation on the record of DDA is of larger amplitude than merely being the entry with respect to the determination or collection of revenue from the property. The importance of the mutation in the record of DDA or similarly in the record of L&DO with respect to the leasehold property was discussed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Swarn Singh Banda Vs. Manpreet Singh Chhatwal 2009 (109) DRJ 482 and in para 37 of the judgment, it was observed that there is some distinction between a freehold and leasehold property. That in a freehold property, the mutation is carried out by the Municipal Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 15 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
corporation for purpose of house tax, however, the mutation by the L&DO in its records is carried out to record who is the owner of the property on the demise of a person. The observations in the said judgment are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein the suit property is also a leasehold property. Accordingly, the mutation with respect to suit property in the record of DDA cannot be termed as a mere formality for the purpose of determination or collection of revenue and rather is treated as the record of ownership. Therefore, it is concluded that the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff in this regard does not hold water.
20. Last but not least, it is important to observe that the basic document in the present matter is the lease deed, placed on record as Ex. Mark PW1/B. The said document can be relied upon as being not disputed and rather admitted by both parties. Clause (10) of the said document provides for the transfer in the eventuality of the death of the sub-lessee. Sub-para 1 of said clause reads as follows:
In the event of death of the sub-lessee, the person on whom the title of the deceased devolves shall, within three months of the devolution, give notice of such devolution to the lessor and the lessee.
21. Accordingly, as per the lease deed itself, the rights in the suit property had devolved upon the person on whom the title in the suit Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 16 Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
property had devolved. In this regard, as rightly pointed out by ld. Counsel for defendants, it has been categorically observed by the Civil Court in the judgment dated 29.08.2007, placed on record as Ex.PW1/DX1 (colly) that even after the death of Late Jagir Singh , Smt. Shiv Kaur could not be said to have succeeded to the entire estate of Jagir Singh and she was merely a nominee, who is nothing more but a trustee. Moreover, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, read with Schedule 1 of the said Act, the leasehold rights in the suit property had devolved equally to the 1/3rd share each in favor of Smt. Shiv Kaur and both her sons including the plaintiff, after the death of Jagir Singh. Therefore, as rightly established in the previous civil litigation, Smt Shiv Kaur had no right to transfer the rights in the suit property solely in favor of the brother of the plaintiff or in favor of the plaintiff only. Accordingly, it is again clarified that in view of the right of his brother, the plaintiff is again not entitled to seek mutation of the suit property in the record of DDA and the same can be done either in name of the both including the plaintiff and his brother or in the name of the plaintiff, only after the brother of the plaintiff relinquishes his share in favor of the plaintiff.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction against defendant no.1 and consequently, issue no.1 is decided negative in favor of defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff.
Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
17
Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
ISSUE NO. 223. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to show, if any, at any point in time the defendants had tried to change the status of the suit property and create any encumbrance, lien, or any other liability on the suit property. Without having any cause of action, the plaintiff cannot seek the said relief of injunction. Moreover, even otherwise defendant no.1 cannot mutate the suit property in name of any other person except in the name of the plaintiff and his brother, jointly or in favor of any of these, if there being any relinquishment of share, as the case may be. Again, defendant no.2 has already given the membership of the society to the plaintiff and there cannot be any other eventuality for the creation of any liability on the suit property by defendant no.2.
24. Moreover, the said issue has not been pressed by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff at the stage of final arguments and no relief of permanent injunction has been claimed while advancing the final submissions. Accordingly, this issue is decided negative against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 325. The onus to prove the same was upon the defendant no.1. As discussed in the findings of issue no.1, the brother of the plaintiff namely Harinder Pal Singh was certainly a necessary party to the present suit as being the legal heir of late Smt. Shiv Kaur, who has not been impleaded by the plaintiff.
Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
18
Amarjeet Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
Accordingly, issue no.3 is hereby decided in favor of defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 426. The onus to prove the same was upon defendant no.2. As discussed in the findings of issues no.1 and 2, there was no cause of action against defendant no.2 and the only substantial relief claimed is against defendant no.1. Accordingly, issue no.4 is hereby decided in favor of defendant no.2 and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 5 RELIEF
27. In view of the findings of all the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open court: (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
Dated: 24.09.2022
Note :- This Judgment contains 18 pages and all the pages have been checked
and signed by me.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No:- 402/17 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI