Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

This Order Of Mine Shall Decide The ... vs Ajay Kumar on 12 March, 2015

IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANJAL ANEJA, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-06/
                                 CENTRAL
                      TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit. No. 726/14                                                12.03.2015
                    JHAMMAN LAL V. AJAY KUMAR
                                      ORDER

1. This order of mine shall decide the application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC dated 07.11.2009 filed on behalf of plaintiff.

2. This application seeks impleadments of two persons namely Mr. J. N. Satija and Mrs. Monika Satija as parties in the present suit and also seeks consequential amendment in the prayer clause (ii) for decree for possession against the actual occupants of the suit property.

3. It is stated in the application that at the time of filing the present suit, the suit property was a vacant plot bearing Municipal number B-80, Derewala, Nagar Delhi-09 which was originally alloted by the society in the year 1977. Further stated that during the pendency of the suit a three storey building was constructed which is being occupied by Mr. J. N. Satija, son of Mr. T. R. Satija & the 2nd floor is being occupied by Mr. Monika Satija wife of Arun Satija. That this fact was disclosed by the witness N.K. Moriya on 20.04.2009 when he was examined as DW-3 by defendant no.1.

Jhamman Lal V. Ajay Kumar On 12th March, 2015 That the unauthorized occupation of the ground and first floor by J.N. Satija and 2nd floor by Smt. Monika Satija are subsequent events which are only confirmed on 20.04.2009 and further these two persons are necessary parties to be impleaded as defendant no.5 and 6 as the present suit is being defended only by Sh. J.N. Satija & Ravi Satija who is real brother of Smt. Monika Satija and till date they have not filed any application to agitate that they have got any interest in the suit property although they are paying house tax as per statement of DW-3. Further stated that this application is filed without any delay since it was disclosed by defendant no.1 that he is not in possession of the suit property and he has not handed over the possession to any person or acted on the said GPA dated 11.4.1980.

4. In reply on behalf of defendant no.1 it is stated that the proposed defendants have no concern with the adjudication of the matter in controversy and therefore they are neither necessary nor proper party. That the present suit is for declaration and possession and a suit for declaration is barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act beyond a period of 3 years and a suit for possession is barred under section & Article 65 of said Act after a period of 12 years and since the present suit was filed on 21.06.89, therefore no relief of declaration or possession is maintainable, as it is the case of defendant no. 1 that plaintiff vide documents comprising agreement to sell, SPA, receipts and bill had transfered the suit plot in favour of Suit. No. 726/14 Page No. 2 of 5 Jhamman Lal V. Ajay Kumar On 12th March, 2015 Smt. Agyawanti & after her death the suit property devolved upon her daughter Smt. Pushpa Rani and the plaintiff was made aware of these facts as early as in September 1999 when defendant no.1 filed his WS. It is further stated that the suit plot having being constructed by Smt. Agyawanti with the help of her daughter, Pushpa Rani stood transferred in various hands and plaintiff had not impleaded any person and even the plaintiff declined to implead Agyawanti and therefore the plaintiff cannot be allowed to implead any successors or assignees. Other averments of the application are denied.

5. In reply on behalf of respondents Mr. J.N. Satija & Smt. Monika Satija, it is stated that the plaintiff in his replication to the WS of defendant no.1 refused to implead Smt. Agyawanti. That the plaintiff was made fully aware of the execution even the execution, agreement to sell etc. in favour of Smt. Agyawanti. That the plaintiff was also aware, as admitted by himself in replication, that the suit property had been sold to Smt. Sneh Lata Dawar even then the plaintiff did not choose to implead either Smt. Agyawanti or Smt. Sneh Lata Dawar. That the property after exchanging various hands was ultimately sold in favour of the answering respondents who purchased the same in year 1995 and therefore the present application is abuse of process of Court. That answering respondents are neither necessary nor proper party.

6. I have heard the arguments and pursued the record.

Jhamman Lal V. Ajay Kumar On 12th March, 2015

7. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration, permanent injunction and possession in which the plaintiff alleges that he was allotted a plot and he kept on visiting the office of the society of Dera Ismile Khan for execution of transfer deed in his favour. It is alleged by him that during his visits he met one Ishwar Singh who was an influential member of the society and who persuaded him not to visit the office of society and he got the signatures of the plaintiff by manipulation on certain stamp papers on the pretext that the same could be used for transferring the plot and the plaintiff in good faith appended his signatures and later came to know that a GPA has been executed on those papers in favour of defendant no. 1. It is also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff cancelled and revoked his power of attorney dt. 11.4.80 vide registered notice dt. 06.07.88, but on visiting DDA office on 08.06.89, plaintiff has come to know that defendant no. 1 got executed a perpetual sublease in plaintiff's favour without plaintiff's knowledge and defendants no. 1 and 2 after getting illegally executed perpetual sublease, entered into an agreement with defendant no. 4 for sale and construction of building over the plot.

8. Thus, the dispute in the present suit is with regard to the fraudulent execution of the GPA, sub-lease and the agreement. It is noted that the defendant no. 1 in his WS has clearly stated that the suit property stood transferred in the name of Smt. Agyawanti. It Suit. No. 726/14 Page No. 4 of 5 Jhamman Lal V. Ajay Kumar On 12th March, 2015 was also contended on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff did not implead any other person as defendant despite clearly having knowledge that the property has exchanged several hands before it came into the hands of the proposed defendants. This fact is not disputed that none of the intervener purchasers have been impleaded as defendants. The proposed defendants/ respondents are no doubt lis pendence purchasers. In S. N. Arora V. Brokers & Brokers Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2011 Del 89, it was observed that a lis-pendence transferee/ purchaser has no right of impleadment. It was also observed that the principle of lis-pendence does not prohibit a transfer, it however mandates that the transferee will be fully bound by decree that will be passed against his transferor. Thus, merely that the respondents/ proposed defendants are in possession of the suit property, that does not makes them necessary or proper parties as they have no say in deciding the real controversy regarding the execution of various documents by the plaintiff and defendants which the plaintiff alleges that the same have been fraudulently executed.

9. In view of the above discussion, the present application is dismissed.

        Announced in open Court                 (PRANJAL ANEJA)
           on 12.03.2015                    CIVIL JUDGE-06, CENTRAL
                                                THC/DELHI/ 12.03.2015



Suit. No. 726/14                                         Page No. 5 of 5
Jhamman Lal V. Ajay Kumar                                On 12th March, 2015