Delhi District Court
Manjeet Singh vs Meena Bagga on 14 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEII
(CENTRAL):TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 236/2015
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0524242011
Manjeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Kundan Lal
3474, Nicholson Road,
Mori Gate, Delhi.
................ Plaintiff
VERSUS
Meena Bagga
W/o Sh. Ashok Bagga
210A, DDA LIG Flats
Motia Khan, New Delhi110 055.
.............. Defendant
Date of Institution : 16.11.2011
Judgment Reserved on : 13.01.2016
Judgment Pronounced on : 14.01.2016
JUDGMENT :(Oral) (1) This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for declaration of sale deed as null and void and for eviction of defendant. Plaintiff's Case:
(2) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that he is the owner and in possession of the suit property bearing No. 341718, Khasra No. 249/128, Ward No. VII, Angoori Ghatta, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, inherited from his Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 1 of 9 deceased grandfather. It is pleaded that the in fact the suit property was taken by plaintiff's grandfather Late Dr. Hari Ram with late Gopi Mohan Rai on perpetual lease and after the demise of Dr. Hari Ram his right, share, claim and interest in the said property devolved his son Kundan Lal (since deceased) and Smt. Kamla Rani, stepmother of Kundan Lal and further that Smt. Kamla Rani had given her undivided right, title, share, claim and interest out of the right and share of Dr. Hari Ram to Kundan Lal and on demise of Kundan Lal the plaintiff became entitled to the said share of Dr. Hari Ram for reason all other heirs and legal representatives of Late Kundan Lal relinquished and released their respective rights, title, share, claim and interest in the said property in favour of the plaintiff.
(3) It is further pleaded that after the demise of Gopi Mohan Rai, his right, share, claim and interest in respect of said property devolved his wife Smt. Kamla Devi and two daughters Smt. Shashi Goel and Smt. Mona Rai. It is pleaded that Smt. Shashi Goel already predeceased during lifetime of Smt. Kamla Devi and further Kamla Devi during her lifetime executed a registered Will bequeathing the said property in favour of her daughter Smt. Mona Rai and her grand daughter Ms. Geetika Goel the daughter of Shashi Goel and both Smt. Mona Rai and Ms. Geetika Goel became entitled to the said share of Gopi Mohan Rai in respect of said property.
(4) It is pleaded by the plaintiff that he is entitled for 1/2 share while Smt. Mona Rai and Ms. Geetika Goel are entitled for 1/4 share each of both in said joint and undivided property. It is further pleaded that it had come to the Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 2 of 9 knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant illegally occupied and thereafter constructed a portion measuring area of 93 sq. yard approximately of aforesaid joint property and to justify her claim she got a sale deed executed on 3.12.2004 by coowners Smt. Mona Rai and Ms. Geetika Goel in her favour for a total consideration of Rs.4,50,000/ duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. According to the plaintiff, the above said sale deed is illegal, bad and result of fraud and not binding upon the plaintiff at all as same contained a particular portion for defendant / purchaser in undivided interest of plaintiff and other coowners. It is pleaded that prior to allotment of share in joint property, said sale deed specifying a portion of purchaser / defendant is void and inoperative between the parties concerned and same is deserve to be cancelled. It is submitted that the plaintiff has come to know that the defendant has made an application for mutation and apprehends that he will be deprived off his interest in said property.
Defendant's Case:
(5) The defendant has filed detailed written statement wherein preliminary objection has been raised that the sale deed dated 3.12.2004 is absolutely legal and cannot be declared as null and void and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the sale deed dated 3.12.2014 has been challenged in November, 2011 and hence the suit is time barred and is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the defendant is in possession of the suit property in her legal right and no decree for Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 3 of 9 eviction can be passed and the plaintiff has no right of any kind whatsoever in the suit property. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has concealed material facts and has made false averments knowing the same to be false. It is further submitted that there is no cause of action to file the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and that the suit property is not properly valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be dismissed. On merits, all the averments and allegations made in the plaint have been denied by the defendant.
ISSUES:
(6) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 13:08.2013:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration thereby declaring the sale deed dated 3.12.2004 in favour of the defendant is null and void ? (OPP)
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (OPD)
3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fees ? (OPD)
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(7) In order to discharge the onus upon him, the plaintiff Manjeet Singh has examined himself as PW1. He has tendered his examinationinchief by Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 4 of 9 way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A and also relied upon the documents i.e. copy of lease deed dated 29.7.1953 which is Mark A, relinquishment deed which is Ex.PW1/2, copy of lease deed dated 3.12.2004 which is Mark B, legal notice along with postal receipt Ex.PW1/4 (Colly.) and electricity bill which is Ex.PW1/5. Further examination in chief of plaintiff was deferred for want of original of Ex.PW1/1 but thereafter despite repeated opportunity he did not appear before the court to complete his examinationinchief and ultimately on 12.1.2016 the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. (8) In view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence, the defendant also closed her evidence in affirmative and also not pressed the Issue No. 2 and 3 being the legal issues.
OBSERVATIONS & FINDINGS:
(9) I have considered the submissions made by the parties, the evidence which has come on record and the records placed before me and my issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration thereby declaring the sale deed dated 3.12.2004 in favour of the defendant is null and void ? (OPP) (10) Onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff who despite opportunity has failed to adduce any evidence. Initially he had filed his affidavit of evidence which he has tendered partly on 20.1.2015 and further examinationinchief was deferred for want of the original lease deed after Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 5 of 9 which he has never appeared in the court either to complete his examination inchief or to submit for crossexamination for one reason or the other. In view of the fact that the plaintiff failed to adduce the evidence, the defendant too has closed his evidence in affirmative.
(11) It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff is deliberately not appearing before this court repeatedly or adduce any evidence because their relinquishment deed dated 2.9.2008 vide Ex.PW1/2 filed by the plaintiff on record shows that Sh. Kundal Lal has 2/3 share in the property bearing No. 3417 and there is no whisper of property bearing no.
3418 and also no site plan has been filed by the plaintiff on record to show that the property falls in 3417 and not 3418. It is argued that since the property no. 3418 admittedly does not find a mention in the registered deed, it was necessary for the plaintiff to declared that the property bearing No. 3418 was the joint family property as was being claimed by the defendant in the written statement which fact he has not denied in the replication and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed.
(12) I have considered the submissions made but since the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus upon him and bring on record the evidence to substantiate his claims, hence I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 3.12.2004 is null and void. The Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2: Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (OPD) Issue No. 3: Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 6 of 9 purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fees ? (OPD) (13) Issue No. 2 and 3 are clubbed together for sake of convenience being interlinked involving common discussion. Onus of proving these issues was upon the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that since the plaintiff has failed to discharge the initial onus of proving his entitlement to the relief claimed hence he is not pressing the Issue No. 2 and 3 and even otherwise in so far as the aspect of limitation is concerned, he has pointed out that the suit for declaration has been filed after the period of limitation as provided under Article 56 of the Limitation Act i.e. three years. He has pointed out that the sale deed in question dated 3.10.2004 and suit has been filed on 9.11.2011 after the gap of seven years. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action had arisen on 18.5.2011 when he was going to transfer his share in the suit property and came to know from the office of Sub Registrar about the sale deed under challenge. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the registration of a document with the public authority is a notice but even otherwise claiming any right, title and interest in the suit property and since the document in question sale deed was registered on 3.10.2004 hence it is deemed a notice and constitutes a notice to the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel has further pointed out that even otherwise the plaintiff has failed to place on record any document to show that he had actually gone to the office of Sub Registrar on 18.5.2011 because if he would have gone, some receipt issued for this court should have been placed on record or entry in this Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 7 of 9 regard must have been made, which has not been placed before this court. Even otherwise the copy of inspection of record from the office of Sub Registrar which document of inspection has not been placed on record thereby falsifying his claim of knowledge on 18.5.2011. It is argued that in this background the plaintiff is not able to discharge the onus upon them. (14) I have considered the submissions made before me. On the face of it, the suit of plaintiff appears to be time barred having been filed after a gap of almost seven years and it was necessary for the plaintiff to have proved that he had deprived of the registration on 18.5.2011 which onus the plaintiff has not been able to discharge and ever since the plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence to discharge the initial onus upon it on account of which the defendant has not pressed these issues and hence the Issue No. 2 and 3 are hereby disposed off as not pressed.
Relief:
(15) In view of my discussions on the various issues above, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed in the plaint.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(16) The plaintiff having failed to lead any evidence to discharge the onus upon it, he is not entitled to to any relief claimed in the plaint and the suit is hereby dismissed.
Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 8 of 9 (17) The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be cosigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 14.01.2016 ADJII(CENTRAL)/ DELHI
Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 9 of 9
Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga
CS No. 236/2015
14.01.2016
Present: None for the plaintiff.
Ld. Proxy Counsel for the defendant.
Be awaited.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ADJ02, Central/14.1.2016
4:00 PM
Present: None for the plaintiff.
Ld. Proxy Counsel for the defendant.
Vide my separate detailed judgment (Oral) dictated and announced in the court but not yet typed, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. No orders as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJ02, Central/14.1.2016 Manjeet Singh Vs. Meena Bagga (CS No. 236/15) Page No. 10 of 9