Delhi District Court
Nitin Sharma vs Smt. Kesar Devi And Ors on 29 May, 2024
DLST010028982018
In the Court of Sh. Munish Bansal,
District Judge-03, South District,
Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi.
CS No.: 411/2018
In the matter of :-
Sh. Nitin Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Premchand Sharma,
R/o 135-A, Begum Pur,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017. .......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Kesar Devi (Died during pendency of suit)
W/o Late Sh. Jai Kishan,
R/o 135A, Begum Pur, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi- 110017.
2. Sh. Narender Sharma (Died during pendency of suit),
S/o Late Sh. Jai Kishan,
R/o 135-A, Begum Pur,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
3. Sh. Phool Chand Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Jai Kishan,
R/o 135-A, Begum Pur,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
4. Sh. Surendra Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Jai Kishan,
R/o 135-A, Begum Pur,
CS/411/2018 Page 1 of 19
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
5. Sh. Hari Om Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Jai Kishan,
R/o 135-A, Begum Pur,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
6. Sh. Santosh Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Jai Kishan,
R/o 135-A, Begum Pur,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
7. Sh. Devendra Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Jai Kishan,
R/o 135-A, Begum Pur,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
8. Smt. Saroj Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Jai Kishan,
R/o 135-A, Begum Pur,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017. ......Defendants
Date of institution : 24.04.2018
Arguments heard on : 04.05.2024
Date of decision : 29.05.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF PARTITION,
PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. The facts as epitomized in the plaint are that Plaintiff is the youngest and only son of Late Sh. Premchand Sharma. Smt. Kesar Devi (defendant no.1 as per unamended memo of CS/411/2018 Page 2 of 19 parties originally filed), was the grandmother of Plaintiff. Defendants herein are described as those mentioned in unamended memo of parties originally filed with the plaint and is so mentioned in the memo of parties in the present judgment. Defendants no. 2 to 7 are paternal uncles of Plaintiff and Defendant no. 8 is paternal aunt of Plaintiff. Smt. Kesar Devi was a party to registered partition deed executed on 29.01.1999 between Sh. Jai Pal Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal, R/o 135- A, Begumpur, New Delhi and Sh. Jagbir Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal, R/o 135-A, Begumpur, New Delhi and all the signatories to said Partition Deed are the sole and absolute co- owners of free-hold built-up property bearing no. 135-A, measuring 1000 sq. yards, part of khasra no. 113, situated in Village Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, by virtue of a sale deed executed on 30.10.1957. Under the afore-said Partition Deed dated 29.01.1999, Smt. Kesar Devi had taken the portion measuring 333 sq. yards of the property bearing no. 135-A, measuring, part of khasra no. 113, situated in Village Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). At the time of execution of Partition Deed, the value of the property was Rs.14,97,000/-. The Plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share in the suit property belonging to his grandmother Smt. Kesar Devi.
1.1. It is further averred that relations between the Plaintiff and Defendants have not been good for past several years, especially after death of Plaintiff's father and Plaintiff has been living separately from the Defendants for past several years. In September, 2009, Smt. Kesar Devi persuaded the Plaintiff to CS/411/2018 Page 3 of 19 enter into an agreement so as to relinquish all his claim in the suit property. On 19.04.2018, when Plaintiff visited the suit property, he found that the Defendants had started making heavy construction over the suit property, thereby trying to defeat the share of the Plaintiff in the suit property.
On these grounds, the Plaintiff is seeking preliminary decree of partition whereby he is claiming 1/8th share by way of partition of suit property bearing no. 135-A, measuring 333 sq. yards, part of khasra no. 113, situated in Village Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The Plaintiff is also seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants thereby restraining them from sub-letting, assigning and/or otherwise parting with the possession of the suit property or from creating any third-party interest in the suit property. The Plaintiff has also sought final decree of partition of suit property by metes and bounds. Hence, this suit.
2. Summons of the suit were issued to the Defendants. Upon service of summons, the Defendants no. 1 to 7 appeared through their counsel but however, joint written statement was filed on behalf of Defendants no. 2 to 7 except Defendant no.3, who later on by way of affidavit, adopted the said written statement. It is stated in the preliminary objections of written statement that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. It is stated that as per the Partition Deed dated 29.01.1999, the entire property no. 135-A, measuring 1000 sq. yards, part of khasra no. 113, situated in Village, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, was owned by three brothers namely Sh. Jai Pal Sharma, Sh. Jai Kishan Sharma CS/411/2018 Page 4 of 19 and Sh. Jagbir Sharma. After the death of Sh. Jai Kishan Sharma, all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jai Kishan Sharma i.e. Defendants herein as well as father of Plaintiff Sh. Prem Chand Sharma (now deceased), had executed a Relinquishment Deed registered with office of Sub Registrar on 24.06.1997, in favour of their mother i.e. Smt. Kesar Devi (defendant no.1) and that Smt. Kesar Devi had all the rights to deal with the suit property, therefore, Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property during the lifetime of Defendant no.1. It is stated that in the year 2000, the Defendants constructed a building consisting of 3 floors over the half portion of suit property and after construction of the same, started living therein with their respective families.
2.1. It is further stated that though Late Sh. Prem Chand Sharma, father of Plaintiff, had relinquished his share in the suit property, yet he was given a portion in the suit property by Defendant no.1 Smt. Kesar Devi, being her son wherein he used to reside with his wife Smt. Urmila, daughers Ms. Annapurna and Ms. Preeti Sharma and son Nitin Sharma (plaintiff herein), till his death in the year 2005. Since after the death of Sh. Prem Chand Sharma, mother of Plaintiff Smt. Urmila started misbehaving and picking quarrels with Smt. Kesar Devi, it was decided that Smt. Urmila Devi alongwith her daughters and son (plaintiff herein), should be given other property bearing no. 17, Begumpur, New Delhi, which also devolved upon the Defendants after death of their father Sh. Jai Kishan Sharma. On insistence of Smt. Kesar Devi, the Defendants agreed to give the built-up property bearing no. 17, Begumpur, New Delhi and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.09.2009 was executed between Smt. CS/411/2018 Page 5 of 19 Kesar Devi and Smt. Urmila (mother of plaintiff herein), wherein she and other legal heirs of Late Sh. Prem Chand Sharma, were given the aforesaid property and it was agreed by Smt. Urmila Devi that neither she nor any of her legal heir shall claim any share in the suit property in future. After execution of said MOU, the parties acted upon the said MOU and mother of Plaintiff vacated the portion in their possession in the suit property and shifted to Property bearing no. 17, Begumpur, New Delhi alongwith her daughters and son (plaintiff herein). After shifting to the said property, mother of the Plaintiff got rebuilt the said property from some builder and raised four storied building thereon, after demolishing the old structure. The Plaintiff and his mother have let out major portion of the said property and are getting big amount as rent. It is stated that the Plaintiff has intentionally concealed all these facts from this Court and has not approached with clean hand.
2.2. It is further stated that the present suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties as mother and sisters of Plaintiff, who are also legal heirs of Late Sh. Prem Chand Sharma, have not been arrayed as parties by the Plaintiff with ulterior motive. It is stated that Plaintiff has not explained as to how and on what grounds is he claiming 1/8th share in the suit property. It is further stated that the site plan filed by the Plaintiff is vague and unspecific and does not depict material particulars of the suit property. It is further stated that Plaintiff has not mentioned his correct address in the memo of parties.
CS/411/2018 Page 6 of 192.3. In reply on merits, all the averments made in the plaint are denied by the Defendants.
On these grounds, it is prayed that present suit be dismissed with costs.
2.4. Defendant no. 8 Smt. Saroj Devi, has not appeared despite service nor has filed written statement in her defence. She was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2018.
3. During the course of proceedings, Smt. Kesar Devi (defendant no.1) got expired. Vide order dated 10.07.2019, it was observed that the application seeking impleadment of LRs of deceased Smt. Kesar Devi was moved beyond the period of limitation. As enshrined in Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1963, the application was ought to be filed within 90 days and as no sufficient reason was explained by the Plaintiff to condone the delay, the application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC was dismissed and proceedings against Smt. Kesar Devi (defendant no.1) stood abated vide the said order dated 10.07.2019.
4. During the course of proceedings, Defendant no. 2 Narender Sharma also expired and since application for impleadment of his LRs was also moved beyond the period of limitation, proceedings against Defendant Narender Sharma, also stood abated vide order dated 19.04.2022.
5. Despite opportunities, the Plaintiff failed to file replication and accordingly, right to file replication was closed vide order dated 10.04.2023.
CS/411/2018 Page 7 of 196. From pleadings of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 10.08.2023:-
a) Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of action? OPDs.
b) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of a necessary party? OPDs
c) Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPDs
d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition declaring the shares of the plaintiff and the defendants? OPP
e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with regard to the suit property i.e. Plot no.
135A, part of Khasra no. 113, situated in the area of Village Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
f) Relief.
Thereafter, matter was fixed for PE.
7. To prove his case, the Plaintiff himself stepped in witness box as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he made similar averments as made in his plaint. He has also relied upon certain documents viz.
1. Partition Deed dated 29.01.1999 Mark 'A',
2. Site plan Ex. PW1/2,
3. Two photographs Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant.
CS/411/2018 Page 8 of 197.1. During his cross-examination, PW1 has stated that presently he is residing at 156, MB Extn., Badarpur, New Delhi. He stated that he is not residing at the suit property. He further admitted the suggestion that agreement with respect to property no. 17, Begumpur, New Delhi, was executed between Smt. Kesar Devi and his mother Smt. Urmila Devi, however, voluntarily stated that he was not a party to said agreement. He also admitted that he alongwith his mother and two sisters had shifted to said property no.17, Begumpur, New Delhi. He admitted the suggestion that property no.17, Begumpur, New Delhi belonged to his grandfather Late Sh. Jai Kishan Sharma. He stated that they got built up the said property upto 04 floors, out of which two floors were kept by them and two floors were kept by the builder. He further stated that his mother had expired and his two sisters got married. He admitted the suggestion that his mother had entered into the collaboration agreement with the builder as owner of the said property and that his mother used to collect rent of the ground floor of said property. He stated that he did not know if his father and all his brothers and sisters had relinquished their right in the property bearing no. 135-A, Begumpur, New Delhi, vide registered deed dated 24.06.1997. He further stated that he did not know if vide agreement dated 14.09.2009 executed between Smt. Kesar Devi and his mother, it was agreed that his mother, his sisters or he cannot claim any share in the suit property as property no. 17, Begumpur, New Delhi was given in lieu of the same. He further stated that he was living with his mother at the time when ground floor and first floor of property no. 17, Begumpur, New Delhi were sold by his mother, however, he did not remember the year when they were sold. He stated that CS/411/2018 Page 9 of 19 he had not asked the Defendants for partition of suit property. He identified signatures of his sister Ms. Annapurna Sharma on agreement dated 14.09.2009, Ex. PW1/DX.
The Plaintiff has not brought any other witness in support of his claim. Thereafter, PE was closed and matter was fixed for DE.
8. To rebut the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendants got examined only one witness i.e. Sh. Hari Om Sharma as DW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/X, wherein he made similar deposition as made in the written statement. He placed reliance on documents viz. Relinquishment deed dated 24.06.1997 Ex. DW1/1 (OSR) and Agreement dated 14.09.2009, already Ex. PW1/DX. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff. During his cross-examination, he stated that Ex. PW1/DX is not a registered agreement.
Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard arguments as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff as well as Defendants no. 3 to 7 and gone through the record including the written submissions filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
Issue no. (d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition declaring the shares of the plaintiff and the defendants? OPP
10. Before getting into the discussion on the issue at hand, vide order dated 10.07.2019 and 19.04.2022, proceedings CS/411/2018 Page 10 of 19 in the suit against defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 stood abated, however, it is well settled that in partition suit, proceedings against the deceased defendants do not stand abated and if such defendants are found entitled to share in the property, there right to share in the property is be determined and protected by the court. Keeping in view the said proposition of law in mind, this court shall now proceed to decide the issue at hand.
10.1 It is the admitted case of both the sides to the suit that the suit property was a separate property of the Jai Kishan Sharma (grandfather of the Plaintiff), the same being purchased by him jointly with his brothers namely Jai Pal Sharma and Jagbir Sharma, and thereafter, partitioned equally into three shares and Jai Kishan Sharma through his wife Smt. Kesar Devi (Defendant no.1) getting the suit property measuring 333 sq. yards vide registered partition deed dated 29.01.1999 Mark A).
10.2 Now, the Plaintiff has claimed 1/8 share in the suit property by virtue of intestate succession by stating that his grandfather had seven (7) sons and one (1) daughter at the time of his grandfather's death. However, wife/widow of his grandfather i.e. Plaintiff's grandmother was also alive at the time of the Plaintiff's grandfather's death and wife/widow is also a legal heir as per the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) finding mention in Class-I Legal Heirs. Thus, the claim of share i.e. 1/8th share in the suit property, sought by the Plaintiff is not correct as per law.
CS/411/2018 Page 11 of 1910.3 Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant no. 1 has taken the whole of the suit property vide Partition deed Mark A. However, perusal of Mark A reveals that the said deed acknowledged the existence of relinquishment deed Ex DW1/1 whereby all the sons (including the father of the plaintiff) and daughter of defendant no. 1 have relinquished their share in favour of defendant no. 1. Thus, it is clear that defendant no. 1 became entitled to suit property only by virtue of relinquishment deed Ex. DW1/1 followed by the Partition deed Mark A. 10.4 Defendants have proved the relinquishment deed Ex. DW1/1 to show that after the death of the grandfather of the Plaintiff, all his legal heirs (sons and daughter/defendants herein) including the father of the Plaintiff, has relinquished their share in favour of defendant no.1. Since the father of the plaintiff has inherited the share in property in his own right and has thereafter, relinquished the said share, hence, the plaintiff, being the son is bound by the relinquishment through estoppel. Though the Plaintiff in his cross-examination states that he did not know if his father and all his brothers and sisters have relinquished their right in the suit property vide registered Relinquishment Deed dated 24.06.1997, but the said Relinquishment Deed Ex.DW1/1 finds mentioned in the Partition Deed Mark 'A'. Thus, it cannot be said that Plaintiff was not aware of the said Relinquishment Deed Ex. DW1/1 and now he cannot blow hot and cold by saying that he is not aware of the said relinquishment made by his father or his father's brothers and sister. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Elumalai @ Venkatesan & Anr Vs. M. Kamala and others & Etc. Civil CS/411/2018 Page 12 of 19 Appeal No. 521-522 of 2023, wherein it has been held that the relinquishment of share in property made by the father is binding upon the sons.
10.5 Nothing has been brought on record by the Plaintiff to controvert the said relinquishment deed Ex. DW1/1. Moreover, the same is registered document. Plaintiff appearing as PW1 simply states in his cross examination that he does not know that his father and all the brothers and sisters of his father have relinquished their share in the suit property. Since, as discussed above, Plaintiff was aware of the Relinquishment Deed Ex.DW1/1 through the medium of Partition Deed Mark 'A', even no challenge to the said Relinquishment Deed has been made by the Plaintiff as per law.
10.6 In para no. 8 of the plaint, Plaintiff has pleaded that the share of the Plaintiff comes to 1/8th of the entire ancestral property belonging to defendant no. 1 who is the grandmother of the Plaintiff. This specific averment clearly shows that Plaintiff was well aware of the relinquishment made by his father and brothers and sister of his father in favour of his grandmother i.e. Defendant no. 1. However, no steps have been taken by the Plaintiff till the filing of the suit for challenging the said relinquishment deed. Hence, in this matter, silence goes against the Plaintiff, thereby dis-entitling him for partition and possession of the suit property.
10.7 Counsel for the Plaintiff has argued that Defendants have admitted that the Plaintiff is the legal heir of late Prem CS/411/2018 Page 13 of 19 Chand Sharma and that property is a HUF and no Will has been executed in favour of the family members, and therefore, the Plaintiff has right in the suit property. Admittedly, the Plaintiff, on the death of his father Prem Chand Sharma would certainly be the legal heir but since the property, as discussed above, was purchased by grandfather of the Plaintiff along with his brothers, the same was the separate property and not a HUF and thereafter, on the death of the grandfather of the Plaintiff, the father of the Plaintiff, on inheritance, has relinquished his share in favour of Defendant no. 1, no question arises of Plaintiff having right in the suit property.
10.8 Plaintiff in para no. 10 of the plaint has pleaded that in September 2009, defendant no.1 maliciously, in order to hoodwink the Plaintiff, persuaded the Plaintiff to enter into agreement so as to relinquish all his claim in the said ancestral property (suit property). It is noted that Plaintiff has neither given any particulars of the same nor he has brought on record any document in this respect. It is also relevant to note that memorandum of understanding (MOU) dated 14.09.2009 Ex.PW1/DX was entered into between defendant no.1 and the mother of the Plaintiff at about the same time but there is no specific mention of the same in the plaint. In the cross- examination, Plaintiff has identified the signatures of his sister Annapurna Sharma on Ex.PW1/DX. The Plaintiff has also admitted that the agreement in respect of the property No. 17, Begumpur, New Delhi was executed between Defendant no.1 and his mother and that he along with his mother and sister shifted from the suit property to the said property after the death CS/411/2018 Page 14 of 19 of Plaintiff's father. It is, thus, evident that the Plaintiff was aware of the said MOU and has, by clever drafting, not fully disclosed the same. In Cross examination, he further stated that the said property also belonged to his grandfather and that he does not remember the date or year when this property was got rebuilt by them from the builder and that four floors were constructed thereon out of which 2 floors of the said building fell into their share and remaining 2 floors were with the builder. He further deposed that they used to reside on the 1st floor which was a flat containing 2 rooms and that there was one room on the ground floor and said room was given on rent by them. He further stated that his mother has entered into collaboration agreement with the builder as the owner of the said property and that his mother used to collect the rent of the ground floor. From the said deposition of the Plaintiff, it needs to be appreciated that the above-mentioned MOU Ex. PW1/DX was acted upon and the said property was taken by the mother of the Plaintiff in pursuance of the said MOU and that mother of the Plaintiff acted as the owner of the said property and got it rebuilt from the builder whereby 2 floors came to the Plaintiff side and other 2 floors were given to the builder. Perusal of the terms of the MOU makes it clear that same was full and final settlement. Plaintiff has made no whisper as to the current status of the said property except that the ground and first floor were sold by his mother but he does not remember in which year the property was sold by his mother, though he was residing with his mother when the said ground floor and first floor were sold by his mother. Plaintiff in his cross examination has admitted that the said property also belonged to his grandfather. Even if Plaintiff denies the said CS/411/2018 Page 15 of 19 MOU, then why the Plaintiff has not sought partition of the said property. It is well settled that suit for partition has to be filed for whole of the property except in certain situation where a partial partition can be allowed. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment in Jasoda Kumari Sewani & ors vs. Satyabhama Sewani & ors, AIR 1960 PAT 76.
10.9 In the plaint, Plaintiff has pleaded that he asked for partition but Defendants refused to partition the suit property mutually and privately but however, in the cross examination, he states that he had never asked for partition of the suit property to the Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff has taken inconsistent stand in his pleadings vis-à-vis his evidence. In this context, it is also worthy to note that in his cross-examination, Plaintiff has given an evasive reply stating that his mother has expired but he does not know the date, month or year of her death and that he does not remember the address where he used to live before living at his present address i.e. 156, MB Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi, though he further states that he along with his mother and sister shifted to property No. 17, Begumpur, New Delhi after the death of his father. Even in para no. 9 of the plaint, Plaintiff has stated that he is living separately from defendants for past several years. However, it is worthwhile to note that Plaintiff has given the same address as that of Defendants in the memo of parties of the suit as well as in the affidavits annexed with the suit and application. It is for this reason that the Plaintiff has escaped answering the question as regards his address prior to the address where he is currently residing. Perhaps, the address given in the memo of parties of the suit as well as in the affidavits appended CS/411/2018 Page 16 of 19 with the suit and the application, has been given by the Plaintiff to make his claim to the suit property to appear to be more forceful and nothing more.
10.10 In view of aforesaid discussion, the Plaintiff could not establish his case and accordingly, the said issue is decided against the Plaintiff.
Issue no. (e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with regard to the suit property i.e. Plot no. 135A, part of Khasra no. 113, situated in the area of Village Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
11. In view of discussion on issue no. (d) and bearing in mind that the decision on the present issue is squarely dependent and consequential on the decision on issue no. (d), this issue also stands decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. (a) Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of action? OPDs
12. Since in view of discussion on issue no. (d), no cause of action has been found in favour of plaintiff, therefore, this issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of Defendants and against the Plaintiff.
Issue no. (b) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of a necessary party? OPDs CS/411/2018 Page 17 of 19
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendants. It is pleaded in the written statement of the Defendants as well as orally argued by the counsel on behalf of the Defendants that the mother and two sisters of the Plaintiff have not been arrayed by the Plaintiff in the present suit with ulterior motives and with a view to mislead this Court and that since the mother and the sisters of the Plaintiff are necessary parties to the suit, the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. From the cross-examination of the Plaintiff, it is evident that Plaintiff is also having mother (alive at the time of institution of the present suit) and two sisters. Since Plaintiff is claiming partition of the property through his father being the legal heir of his father, Plaintiff's mother and sisters are also class-I legal heirs of father of the Plaintiff and have been admitted so by the plaintiff in his cross examination, and therefore, are necessary parties to the suit. Admittedly, they have not been arrayed as parties to the present suit and therefore, the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the Plaintiff.
Issue no. (c) Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPDs
14. It has pleaded on behalf of the Defendants that necessary parties to the suit not been arrayed and therefore, the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that the present suit is vague and unspecific since the Plaintiff has not filed any complete site plan of the suit property along with the plaint and the site plan so filed by the CS/411/2018 Page 18 of 19 Plaintiff is vague and unspecific and does not depict the material particulars of the suit property. It is further averred that the Plaintiff has intentionally given wrong address of residence in the title of the suit. It is also averred that the present suit is devoid of material particulars as the Plaintiff was aware of the execution of MOU dated 14 September 2009 but has intentionally withheld the same from the court and has vaguely stated about the said document in para no. 10 of the suit. Citing these averments, it is pleaded and prayed that the present suit is not maintainable in the present form. It is noted that Defendants have filed their reply/written statement on merits to the plaint as well as have cross-examined the Plaintiff at length on merits of the case also. Therefore, in view of the same and also in light of the fact that the present suit has been decided on merits, the need to refer to the present issue and decide the same is obviated.
Relief
15. In view of the above discussion, this suit of the Plaintiff fails and is, hereby, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court
on 29.05.2024 (Munish Bansal)
District Judge-03,
South District, Saket Courts
New Delhi
CS/411/2018 Page 19 of 19