Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Late Sh. Munish Grover vs Amandeep Singh & Ors on 9 December, 2022

Author: Yashwant Varma

Bench: Yashwant Varma

                    $~13
                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                    +     CS(OS) 345/2019 & I.A. 9197/2019 (U/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC)
                          I.A. 17810/2019 (U/O XL R 1 CPC)
                          LATE SH. MUNISH GROVER               ..... Plaintiff
                                        Through: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr.
                                                 Amer Vaid and Ms. Snehal
                                                 Kaira, Advs.

                                             versus

                          AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS.             ..... Defendants
                                      Through: Mr. Arjun Mukherjee, Adv. for
                                                D-5.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
                                             ORDER

% 09.12.2022

1. The order of 27 January 2020 would indicate that the right of defendant No.1 to file a written statement had been closed. Subsequently and when the matter was called again on 17 November 2020, the Court had recorded that proceedings against defendant No.2 would proceed ex-parte. Today when the matter was taken up, none has appeared on behalf of the aforenoted two defendants. In view of the aforesaid, proceedings in the present suit shall proceed ex-parte defendant No.1 also.

2. The Court also takes note of the provisions made under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which empowers it to render judgment against those defendants who have failed to file their written statements. The Court also bears in mind that the remaining defendants who were represented by learned counsel, stated that they have no objection to the grant of relief "A" and "B" as claimed.

3. The first relief is claimed in respect of a registered Agreement Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:16.12.2022 16:39:50 To Sell dated 06 February 2006. The plaintiff asserts that the aforesaid agreement to sell is fraudulent and creates no rights in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit property being E-20, Anand Niketan, New Delhi - 110021 is asserted to have been in the unchallenged and continuous possession of the plaintiff and his family since 1971. The plaint further avers that in terms of the Lease Deed dated 03 July 1971, Anand Niketan Cooperative Housing Society Limited ["Society"] acquired the lease of residential plots from the President of India. The father of the plaintiff Shri M.L. Grover and after his demise his mother Ms. Sumitra Grover were members of the Society.

4. The suit property came to be allotted by the Society to Ms. Sumitra Grover (since deceased) by way of a registered sub-lease. The original sub-lease which was made in favour of Shri M.L. Grover was cancelled and a subsequent sub-lease was executed by the Society on 26 March 1971 exclusively in the name of Ms. Sumitra Grover. The aforesaid registered sub-lease deed stands registered on 16 April 1971. The plaintiff and his family are stated to have been permanently residing in the ground floor of the suit property and to the exclusion of all others.

5. It is then pointed out that the mother of the plaintiff sometime in the year 1995 filed a suit for partition. In that suit an interim order was passed restraining her from selling, alienating or creating any third party interests in the property in dispute. In light of the consent order passed on the application of the plaintiff in that suit, the same came to be disposed of on 30 May 1997. A reference is also made to an order of status quo which was passed by the High Court with respect to the subject property and which is stated to have continued during the pendency thereof.

November 1995 was further confirmed on 27 February 1996 when the High Court had restrained parties from creating any third party interests in the property in question. The plaintiff also refers to the statement of Ms. Sumitra Grover as recorded in the suit proceedings on 30 May 1997 that she will not sell alienate or create any third party interest.

7. The plaintiff further refers to the proceedings taken before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ["DRT"] whereafter liquidation of all outstandings, the original title deeds were handed over and remained in the possession of the plaintiff. The alleged Agreement to Sell is assailed on the ground that the same could not have possibly been executed in light of the injunction and the order of restraint which was operating. In light of the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff is held entitled to the grant of relief as prayed for in terms of reliefs „A‟ and „B‟.

8. On a failure on the part of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to have contested these proceedings and for reasons aforenoted, the suit shall stand partly decreed ex parte against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 insofar as reliefs „A‟ and „B‟ are concerned.

9. Office to proceed further in light of the suit having been partly decreed against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

10. Learned counsel for parties may place their draft issues on record on or before the next date fixed.

11. Interim order to continue till the next date fixed.

12. Let the matter be now called on 06.03.2023.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

DECEMBER 9, 2022 bh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:16.12.2022 16:39:50