Delhi District Court
Sri Chand vs Raj Bala And Ors on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010067082017
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
CS No. 1621/2017
CNR No. - DLCT01-006708-2017
Sh. Sri Chand
S/o Sh. Ambey Parshad
R/o WZ-132, Nimri Village,
Shastri Nagar,
New Delhi- 110052 ........ Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Raj Bala
W/o Sh. Krishan Lal
R/o WZ-132, Nimri Village,
Shastri Nagar,
New Delhi- 110052
2. Late Sh. Ambey Parshad (since deceased
Through following legal heirs)
a) Sh. Kishan Lal (Elder son of deceased defendant no. 2)
R/o WZ-132, Nimri Village,
Shastri Nagar,
New Delhi- 110052
b) Sh. Rahul @ Kale (Grand son of deceased defendant no. 2)
R/o WZ-132, Nimri Village,
Shastri Nagar, New Delhi- 110052
c) Ms. Pooja (Grand daughter of deceased defendant no. 2)
R/o WZ-132, Nimri Village,
CS DJ No. 1621/17 1 of 17
Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025
Shastri Nagar,
New Delhi- 110052
d) Ms. Arti @ Choti (Grand daughter of deceased respondent no. 2)
R/o WZ-132, Nimri Village,
Shastri Nagar,
New Delhi- 110052 ........ Defendants
Date of Institution: 02.05.2017
Date of conclusion of final arguments: 06.05.2025
Date of Judgment: 09.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants, seeking following reliefs viz.
(a) pass a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, declaring gift deed dated 07.05.2010 as null and void;
(b) pass a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their representatives, associates, agents and assignees etc. thereby effecting one third partition of the suit property; and
(c) pass a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their representatives, associates, agents and assignees etc. thereby according to the plaintiff exclusive and separate possession of the 1/3rd share in the suit property;
(d) Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions made herein above, condone the delay about 7 months in filing the present suit, may kindly be condoned;
CS DJ No. 1621/17 2 of 17
Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025
(e) Plaintiff is seeking exemption from this Hon'ble court to exempt the plaintiff to pay the court fee of Rs. 10,250/-;
(f) pass any other Order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
2. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint, in brief, are as under:-
(a) That the property situates at WZ-132, Nimri Village, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi measuring 110 Square Yards (hereinafter referred to as 'the Suit property') was purchased in the year 1961 by one Smt. Jeevani Devi, who happens to be grandmother of the plaintiff.
(b) That Late Smt. Jeevani Devi expired in the year 1968 leaving behind his son namely Sh. Ambey Prashad- arrayed in the suit as the defendant No. 2.
(c) That the defendant No. 1 is wife of the predeceased son of defendant No. 2, i.e. of Late Sh. Ambey Prashad.
(d) Meaning thereby, the plaintiff has filed the abovecaptioned suit against the wife of his predeceased brother Late Sh. Kishan Lal (making her defendant No. 1) and against his father (the defendant No. 2).
(e) That the plaintiff and the defendants have a bitter relationship, because of which the defendant No. 2 on 07.05.2010 illegally transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 (who is his daughter in law) by executing a gift deed in her favour.
(f) That the plaintiff is in possession of one room and kitchen on the first floor of the suit property, along with his only girl child, wife already expired on 16.07.2001.
(g) That the defendants herein, in April, 2010, filed a civil suit against the plaintiff herein for possession, mesne profit, damages and permanent CS DJ No. 1621/17 3 of 17 Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025 injunction, with respect to the suit property, before the Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi (which was pending at the time of filing this suit). The defendants herein (plaintiffs in that suit), in the said civil suit, had filed a gift deed dated 07.05.2010 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1. A false averment was made in the gift deed that the defendant No. 2 was/ is sole and absolute owner of the suit property. The said gift deed as such came to the knowledge of the plaintiff for the first time in the month of September, 2013 when the defendants herein filed a civil suit against the plaintiff herein.
(h) That the plaintiff belongs to an economically weaker section because of which he could not avail the proper legal guidance in time. The delay, as such, in filing the present suit (which has been filed on 01.05.2017) may be condoned.
3. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this Suit, appearance was put on behalf of the defendants No. 1 and 2. Thereafter, a joint written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants No. 1 and 2.
4. In the written statement of the defendants, it is inter alia pleaded that the the defendant No. 2 purchased the suit property from his own funds in the year 1955 from Sh. Ramjeet and Sh. Lekh Ran; that the defendant No. 2, on compassionate ground, allowed the plaintiff, who is one of his children, to reside in one room and to use one kitchen with an understanding that the plaintiff shall vacate the said portion of the suit property as and when was asked to do the same; that the defendant No. 2 executed a gift deed dated 07.05.2010 in favour of the defendant No. 1 who is his daughter-in-law; and, that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property, and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
CS DJ No. 1621/17 4 of 17
Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025
5. Plaintiff thereupon filed the replication to the written statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 wherein he denied the case of the defendants and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. predecessor of this Court vide Order dated 22.01.2020:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for declaration as prayed in para (a) of prayer clause ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for partition as prayed in para (b) of prayer clause ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for possession as prayed in para (c) of prayer clause ? OPP.
4. Whether the proper court fees have not been affixed in the suit ? OPD.
5. Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit as plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts that another suit is pending between the parties and is liable to be dismissed for the same cause of action on this ground ? OPD.
6. Relief.
7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff only examined himself as a witness as PW1. During the examination-in-chief, PW1 Sh. Sri Chand had deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 alongwith the following documents:-
(a) Ex.PW1/2: Site plan of the suit property
(b) Ex.PW1/3: Photocopy of gift deed dated 07.05.2010
8. PW1 was thereafter cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the defendants. No other PW was examined. PE was accordingly closed vide order dated 31.01.2024 and thereafter suit was posted for DE.
CS DJ No. 1621/17 5 of 17
Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025
9. On behalf of defendants three witnesses were examined viz. Defendant Rajbala as DW1, Smt. Jagwanti (one of the attesting witnesses to the gift deed) as DW2, and Sh. Suresh Chand, Peon from the office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as DW3.
10. Smt. Raj Bala (defendant No. 1) was examined as DW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A alongwith the following documents:-
(a) Ex.DW1/A (OSR): Copy of gift deed dated 07.05.2010
(b) Mark A: Copy of police complaint dated 31.10.2009
(c) Mark B: Copy of police complaint dated 21.05.2010
(d) Mark C: Copy of police complaint dated 10.07.2012
(e) Mark D: Copy of GPA dated 02.04.1984
(f) Mark E: Copy of agreement to Sell dated 02.04.1984
(g) Mark F: Copy of affidavit dated 02.04.1984
(h) Mark G: Copy of receipt dated 02.04.1984
(i) Mark H: Copy of Electricity Bill dated 05.03.2017
(j) Mark I: Copy of settlement dated 28.08.2014
11. DW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. During Cross-examination of DW1, vakalatnama dated 02.07.2012 having signature of DW1 at point A (filed in some other suit) was exhibited as Ex.DW1/P1.
12. Smt. Jagwanti, one of the attesting witnesses to the gift deed, was examined as DW2. She identified her signature on the gift deed dated 07.05.2010.
13. Sh. Suresh Chand, Peon from the office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi was examined as DW3. He has brought the summoned record i.e. register having No. 3314-I containing the gift deed dated 07.05.2010 executed by Sh.
Ambey Prasad in favour of Smt. Raj Bala, registered on 07.05.2010 in additional book No.1 Volume 3314. Copy of the same was exhibited as DW3/A (OSR).
CS DJ No. 1621/17 6 of 17
Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025
14. Both DW2 and DW3 were cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. No other DW was examined. DE was accordingly closed vide order dated 04.03.2025 and thereafter suit was posted for final arguments.
15. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, this court had heard the counsels for the parties, on 09.04.2025 and 06.05.2025. Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants filed Written submission in support of their respective arguments.
16. At the outset it may be noted that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 2 had expired and his LRs were brought on record.
17. I have heard the contentions of both sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 44. Whether the proper court fees have not been affixed in the suit ? OPD.
18. Onus to prove issue No. 4 was on the defendants.
19. Plaintiff in para 13 of the plaint of the Suit has pleaded to the effect that the valuation of the present Suit for declaration, partition and possession qua the plaintiff i.e. his one third share comes to Rs. 8,08,333/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eight Thousand Three Hundred And Thirty Three Only) and on which an amount of Rs. 10,250/- (Rupees Ten Thousand And Two Hundred Fifty Only), appropriate application is enclosed herewith for exemption of Court Fee . As noted hereinabove, the plaintiff has even asked for relief in this regard in the prayer clause of the Suit.
20. So, admittedly the plaintiff has not filed any court fees. However, filed an accompanying application under Order 33 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing court fees.
21. Perusal of record reveals that Ld. predecessor of this Court vide Order dated 02.05.2017 issued notice of the application of the plaintiff under Order 33 Rule 1 CS DJ No. 1621/17 7 of 17 Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025 read with Section 151 CPC to the SDM concerned. Record shows that a report has been filed under signature of the concerned SDM. It however appears that without deciding the said application of the plaintiff (without granting permission to the plaintiff to pursue the Suit as an indigent person), the present Suit has been registered and issue No. 4 has also been framed.
22. Order 33 Rule 8 CPC provides that when an application to sue as an indigent person is granted, it shall be deemed to be a plaint in the suit and shall proceed in the ordinary manner, except that the plaintiff will not have to pay court fees or proper fees. Hon'ble Kerala High Court however in Sivarajan K. V/s State of Kerala & Ors.; AIR 1998 Ker 98 has held that an application to sue as an indigent person can be filed subsequent to filing of the suit.
23. The concerned SDM in his report dated 22.07.2017 (filed on 24.07.2017) has stated as under;
"3. That after taking the statement of above said persons, Bailiff has submitted his report stating that Shri Sri Chand S/o Shri Ambey Parshad was working as a Security Guard and for last 06 months, he is not doing any job. Further, the property in which Shri Sri Chand is residing is also not in his name. Shri Srii Chand is having 3 daughters namely Meenu, Shobha and Tanuja. Out of his 3 daughters namely Meenu and Shobha has already got married and only the youngest daughter Tanuja is residing with him.
4. That Ms. Tanuja is doing a private job and is earning Rs. 6000/- per month. It is only the income source of Shri Sri Chand's family.
5. There is no movable and immovable property in the name of Shri Sri Chand in Delhi or outside Delhi..."
CS DJ No. 1621/17 8 of 17
Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025
24. The defendants have failed to bring on record anything showing that the plaintiff is/ was having sufficient means to enable him to pay the requisite court fees. In this regard it may be noted that during the entire proceeding before this Court, the plaintiff has been represented through Ld. Legal Aid Counsel.
25. Thus, in view of abovesaid and report of the concerned SDM, this Court allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 33 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore V/s Dhanno Devi; AIR 1973 SC 2508 held that when permission to sue as a pauper is granted by the court under rule 7 of that Order, the petition or application must be regarded as a plaint filed on the day when, the application was presented to the court.
26. Accordingly, issue No. 4 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.ISSUE NO. 5
5. Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit as plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts that another suit is pending between the parties and is liable to be dismissed for the same cause of action on this ground ? OPD.
27. Onus to prove issue No. 5 was on the defendants.
28. Plaintiff's case is that the defendants herein had filed a civil suit against the plaintiff herein for possession, mesne profit, damages and permanent injunction, with respect to the suit property, before the Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi (which was pending at the time of filing this suit). The defendants herein (and the plaintiffs in that suit) had filed the gift deed dated 07.05.2010 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1, declaration whereof is being sought in the present suit.
CS DJ No. 1621/17 9 of 17
Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025
29. Defendants pleaded to the effect that since their suit for possession, mesne profit, damages and permanent injunction was pending at the time of filing of this suit, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
30. Defendants however have failed to file/ prove the pleadings of the said previous suit filed by them. There is nothing on record about the said previous suit filed by the defendants herein. DW1 in her cross-examination had deposed to the effect that [I]t is correct that in the year 2014 I filed a suit for possession with injunction against the plaintiff. I do not know about outcome of the aforesaid suit.
31. Accordingly, issue No. 5 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.ISSUE NOS. 1, 2 AND 3
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for declaration as prayed in para (a) of prayer clause ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for partition as prayed in para (b) of prayer clause ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for possession as prayed in para (c) of prayer clause ? OPP.
32. These issues are taken up together as they involve common discussion. Onus to prove issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was on the plaintiff.
33. As already noted, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against his father (defendant No. 2) and his sister in law (wife of deceased brother/ defendant No.
1) while alleging that the suit property is a self acquired property of his paternal grandmother, however, his father, assuming the same as his own, illegally executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant No. 1.
CS DJ No. 1621/17 10 of 17
Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025
34. Per contra, case of the defendants is that the suit property is a self acquired property of the defendant No. 2 and he had every right to execute a gift deed qua the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 1.
35. At the outset it may be noted that during the trial of the Suit, both the plaintiff and the defendants have failed to prove their respective case. It has not been proved on record whether the suit property was/ is purchased by the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff (as alleged by the plaintiff), or by the defendant No. 2 (as alleged by the defendants).
36. It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleading and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof. Plaintiff can not draw strength from the weakness of the defendant's case.
37. Still, if we assume that the suit property was purchased by the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff from her own funds in the year 1961 as claimed by the plaintiff, even then, the plaintiff, during the lifetime of his father (defendant No. 2), would have no right, title or interest in the suit property. PW1 Sh. Sri Chand/ plaintiff deposed in his evidence affidavit to the effect that property was initially purchased in the year 1961 by Smt. Jeevani Devi, grandmother of the deponent.
38. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 explicitly declares the law that a female holds all property in her possession whether acquired by her before or after the commencement of the Act as an absolute owner and not as a limited owner. The rule applies to all property movable and immovable howsoever and whenever acquired by her, but subject to the qualifications mentioned in sub- section (2).
CS DJ No. 1621/17 11 of 17
Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025
39. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 propounds a definite and uniform scheme of succession to the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate after the commencement of the Act. The section groups the heirs of a female intestate into five categories as Entries (a)-(e) and specified in sub-section (1). Sub- section (1), however, is not a complete statement of the law. Two exceptions, both of the same nature are engrafted by sub-section (2) on the otherwise uniform order of succession prescribed by sub-section (1). Broadly stated, the two exceptions are that if the female dies without leaving any issue, then (1) in respect of property inherited by her from her father or mother, that property will devolve not according to the order laid down in the five entries, but upon the heirs of the father; and (2) in respect of property inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law, it will devolve not according to the order laid down in the five Entries but upon the heirs of the husband. The basis of inheritance of a female Hindu's property who dies intestate would thus be the source from which such female Hindu came into possession of property and the manner of inheritance which would decide the manner of devolution. The basic aim of Section 15 (2) of the Act is to ensure that inherited property of an issueless female Hindu dying intestate goes back to its source.
40. The present case, as per the plaintiff, is not that of the female Hindu (Smt. Jeevani Devi) dies without leaving any issue. Admittedly, the defendant No. 2 is son of Late Smt. Jeevani Devi. Even otherwise, the suit property, as per the plaintiff, is her self acquired property. So, the succession in the present suit would be governed by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act.
41. Under sub-section (1) of Section 15, heirs of a female Hindu are divided into five categories/ entries. The general rule of preference is that heirs in an earlier CS DJ No. 1621/17 12 of 17 Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025 entry excludes heirs in latter entries. Section 15 (1) and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reads as under;
"15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.― (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,―
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre- deceased son or daughter) and the husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother ...
16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.―The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestate ‟s property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely:― Rule 1.―Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously ..."
42. In entry (a) there are the following heirs; (1) sons, (2) daughters, (3) husband, (d) son and daughter of a pre-deceased son, and (5) son and daughter of a pre- deceased daughter. Sons, daughters and the husband who fall under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 would inherit in equal moieties the property of a female Hindu died intestate in exclusion to classes of heirs specified in clauses
(b), (c), (d) and (e). The law makers make it specific that it is the sons and daughters of the female Hindu that would be the heirs. Where any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased intestate leaving behind his or her CS DJ No. 1621/17 13 of 17 Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025 own children alive, the children of such pre-deceased son or daughter would take between them the shares which their father or mother would have taken, if they were alive at the material time. It is also pertinent to notice that the grandchildren of a female Hindu would not become heirs, if their father or mother, as the case may be, were living at the time when succession opened. The grandchildren would only succeed between them to their shares, which their parents, if alive, would have taken or inherited. The grandchildren can not be equated to the children of the female Hindu.
43. In Munnalal V/s Rajkumar; AIR 1962 SC 1493, one of the questions that falls for decision whether Munnalal and Ramchandra, the sons of Khilonabai, the female Hindu dying intestate would become heirs of her estate to the exclusion of her grandson Rajkumar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as by virtue of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, the interest declared in favour of Khilonabai devolved upon her sons Munnalal and Ramchandra to the exclusion of her grandson Rajkumar.
44. So, the plaintiff would not become heir of her grandmother Smt. Jeevani Devi, on her death, as his (plaintiff's) father Sh. Ambey Prashad (defendant No. 2) was alive at that time. Property must have devolved solely on the defendant No. 2. And, then, the defendant No. 2 can always dispose of the property by a gift deed (though the case of the defendant No. 2 is that he is the owner of the suit property as he purchased it from some other person, a fact, which he has failed to prove on the record).
45. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on certain judgments. A close scrutiny of the facts and the controversy involved in those judgments show that they were decided on different factual matrices and are distinguishable on facts. In K. C. Laxmana V/s K. C. Chandrappa Godwa; AIRONLINE 2022 SC 556, the CS DJ No. 1621/17 14 of 17 Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a suit for partition and separate possession instituted by the plaintiff/ son contesting the gift/ settlement deed executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 2. However, in that case, the father of the plaintiff had alienated the ancestral property under Hindu Mithakashara law. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Thr. LRs. V/s Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and Ors.; [2024] 4 SCR 383. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case held that if a document seeking to convey immovable property ex-facie reveals that the conveyor does not have the title over it, specific declaration that the document is invalid would not be necessary. But as already noted, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and he can not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defendant's case.
46. From above discussion this court concludes that no relief as claimed in the suit can be granted to the plaintiff. Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 6/ RELIEF
47. In view of the aforesaid findings given qua the issues framed in this suit, on 22.01.2020, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
48. Before parting with this judgment, this Court wants to deal with one more issue (an issue which should have been dealt with in the beginning). That is, issue of limitation.
49. Plaintiff in the present Suit is seeking declaration to the effect that gift deed dated 07.05.2010 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 as null and void as the defendant No. 2 was having no right, title or interest in the property sought to be donated through the gift deed. Other relief(s) of partition and possession are dependent on the finding on the gift deed. The CS DJ No. 1621/17 15 of 17 Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025 plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the said gift deed dated 07.05.2010 came to his knowledge in the month of September, 2013. The plaintiff filed the present Suit on 01.05.2017.
50. The plaintiff has pleaded that he belongs to an economically weaker section of the society and could not avail proper legal guidance which caused a delay of 7 months in filing the Suit. The plaintiff accordingly has made a prayer in prayer clause that the delay of 7 months in filing the suit may be condoned.
51. A suit if otherwise is barred by time and is not saved by other provisions of Section 4 and 6 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, then it shall not be entertainable by the Court and has to be dismissed in view of obligation created under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 (2) (a) (ii) provides that in the case of a pauper, a suit is instituted when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made.
52. Since the substantive relief in the present Suit is of declaration of gift deed dated 07.05.2010 as null and void, the case of the plaintiff would be covered under the provisions of Article 58 of the Act which provides a period of 3 years from when the right to sue first accrues. In the present case it would be considered from the date of knowledge of gift deed sought to be declared as null and void i.e. from September, 2013. Thus the suit of the plaintiff filed on 01.05.2017 is clearly barred by limitation.
53. For aforesaid reasons, the Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
54. Order 33 Rule 11 CPC provides that a person who is permitted to sue as an indigent person is liable to pay the court fee which would have been paid by him if he was not permitted to sue in that capacity, if he fails in the suit. The plaintiff is accordingly directed to pay the Court fees of Rs. 10,250/- (Rupees Ten Thousand And Two Hundred Fifty Only). Ahlmad is directed to forward a copy CS DJ No. 1621/17 16 of 17 Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025 of decree to the concerned Collector to recover the aforementioned Court fees from the plaintiff as per law.
55. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on this 9th day of June, 2025. ABHISHEK Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA This Judgment consists of 17 signed pages. SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.06.09 17:12:47 +0530 (Abhishek Srivastava) Distt. Judge-05, Central, THC, Delhi CS DJ No. 1621/17 17 of 17 Sh. Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Raj Bala & Ors.
Judgment dated 09.06.2025