Delhi District Court
Smt. Dayawati Khanna vs Smt. Suman Mehra Singh (Dhc) on 7 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE- 01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by :- SHRI DHARMENDER RANA (DHJS)
CS. No. 57773/16
Smt. Dayawanti Khanna
W/o Shri T N Khanna
R/o 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane
New Delhi-110001.
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Suman Mehra
W/o late Shri Anil Mehra
R/o G-9, Saket, New Delhi-17.
2. (A) Mr. Raghav Kakar
S/o late Mrs. Pushpa Kakar
R/o E-512, Greater Kailash II,
New Delhi.
(B) Mr. Manish Kakar
S/o late Mrs. Pushpa Kakar
R/o E-512, Greater Kailash II,
New Delhi.
3. Smt Renu Shamlal
w/o Shri Rajiv Shamlal
17, Birbal Marg, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi.
4. Smt Rekha Chandok
w/o Shri Vijay Chandok
21-A, Aurangzeb Lane
New Delhi-110001.
CS NO. 57773/16
Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 1 of 49
Digitally signed
by
DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER RANA
RANA
Date:
2025.02.07
16:41:04 +0530
5. Smt Ruchi Ahuja
w/o Shri Divey Ahuja
A-53, Kailash Colony
New Delhi-110048.
6. Shri Triloki Nath Khanna
s/o late Shri Gokal Chand Khanna
R/o 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane
New Delhi-110001.
... Defendants
Suit presented on : 05.03.2003
Arguments concluded on : 31.01.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 07.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the instant order, I propose to dispose of the instant suit for declaration, permanent injunction and accounts.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
Smt Dayawati Khanna, plaintiff herein has instituted the present suit against her husband Sh T.N. Khanna (defendant no.
6) and her 5 daughters (defendant no. 1 to 5).
Shri T N Khanna(defendant no. 6 herein) along with his three brothers started business in the name and style of Claridges Hotel. The partnership of the four brothers was later converted into a Private Ltd Company by the name of Claridges Hotel (P) Ltd and took over the business of abovesaid hotel. Ms Dayawati Khanna; wife of defendant no. 6(plaintiff herein) also claims to CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 2 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:41:15 +0530 have acquired shares in the said company and became one of the directors in the said hotel. Subsequently, T N Khanna and his brothers and their other family members acquired another company by the name of Eastern International Hotels (P) Ltd (EIHL) and started running two hotels at Mumbai and Goa. Ms Dayawati Khanna (plaintiff herein) also held substantial shares in a company named M/s Mukta Enterprises Pvt Ltd, which inturn, held substantial number of equity shares in EIHL.
Shri T N Khanna(defendant no. 6) was lateron involved in a dispute with his brothers with respect to the ancestral property and the family business. The dispute eventually came to be resolved by two separate awards dated 18.05.1995 and 25.05.1995, upon the basis of a family settlement. By virtue of the said awards, the total holdings of the four families in the Claridges Hotels Ltd and EIHL along with the other movable and immovable properties jointly held by the family of Sh T N Khanna (defendant no. 6) and his three brothers came to re- aligned.
As per the said award, certain properties fell to the share of the family of Sh T N Khanna (defendant no. 6). One of the property bearing no. 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi, divided amongst Sh T N Khanna and his brothers, comprised of four units. Out of the said four units, unit no. IV, fell to the share of the family group of Sh T N Khanna. As per the award, a sum of Rs.7,12,710/- was required to be paid by the family/group of defendant no. 6 to the other branch of his family known as Bhola CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 3 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:41:24 +0530 Nath Brothers HUF. Further, since Sh T N Khanna (defendant no. 6) had no male descendants in his group of family, as he only had five daughters, the Ld Arbitrator in clause XII(A), with the consent of the family members of defendant no. 6 and for their benefits, in the award provided herein as under:
"(a) "Karta(s)" shall mean the Karta for the time being of each of the four family groups and should any of the family groups cease to be a joint Hindu family or cease for any reason to have a Karta, shall mean the eldest male lineal descendant of the present Karta of that family group having and retaining interest in the said property and in the case of the family of Shri T N Khanna, the member nominated by the members of T N Khanna family group",
2. It was further mutually discussed and resolved between Smt Dayawati Khanna (plaintiff herein), Sh T N Khanna (defendant no. 6) and their family members here as under:
a) the plaintiff was nominated by Shri T N Khanna family group to pay a sum of Rs.7,12,710/- to T N Khanna (HUF) as consideration for acquiring right, title and ownership in property designated as Unit no. IV in property bearing no. 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi-110001(herein after referred to as suit property).
b) As part of the package, the plaintiff was required to surrender her interest in the entire share holding in Eastern International CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 4 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:41:30 +0530 Hotel India Ltd and surrender her 50% share holding in another company by the name of Devraha Investment Pvt Ltd.
c) Further, it was also resolved that the plaintiff would receive Rs.37,45,451/- from Bhola Nath Brothers HUF along with interest of Rs.1,61,817/- along with another sum of Rs.50 Lakhs to be paid to the plaintiff by defendant no. 6.
d) It was also resolved that the Articles of Association of Devraha Investment Pvt Ltd, upon surrender of 50% interest of the plaintiff, shall be altered and the entire share holding shall be equally divided amongst the five daughters of plaintiff and defendant no. 6 i.e. 20% share each of the five daughters.
e) Additionally, it was resolved that 25% share holding in Claridges Hotel Ltd, hitherto held by one of the brother of Sh T N Khanna (defendant no. 6), in lieu of 50% interest in Eastern International Hotel Ltd transferred to the said brother, shall be directly transferred in favour of Devraha Investment Pvt Ltd.
3. Eventually, in view of the abovesaid composite understanding, the Articles of Association of Devraha Investment Pvt Ltd came to be amended on 20.05.1995.
4. Accordingly, in line with the aforementioned understanding between the family members and in compliance of the above mentioned awards, T N Khanna HUF, on 17.06.1995 paid the above mentioned sum of Rs.7,12,710/- to Bhola Nath Brother HUF. The said amount was shown as loan given to the CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 5 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:41:37 +0530 plaintiff because the plaintiff was to acquire rights in the above mentioned suit property and thus was required to make the payment. The payment is borne out by the ledger entries and bank statements filed by the plaintiff.
5. After publication of the award and its becoming the rule of the court in 1995, defendant no. 6 was required to get the suit property mutated in favour of T N Khanna HUF and then in favour of the plaintiff. The mutation required 'No objection' from the other three branches of Shri T N Khanna's brothers families and for want of the said 'No Objection' defendant no. 6 delayed the mutation in favour of T N Khanna HUF. The plaintiff being a devoted wife trusted Sh T N Khanna(defendant no. 6) and kept reminding defendant no. 6 about his obligations. In April 2000, when the Government has introduced a scheme for conversion of land to freehold, Sh T N Khanna(defendant no. 6) informed plaintiff that one of the co-owner Shri S K Khanna has expressed his inability to get the property converted into freehold because of financial constraints. Sh T N Khanna(defendant no. 6) kept on delaying the conversion but to reassure the plaintiff about the defendant no. 6's intent to transfer the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, executed a duly registered Will dated 14.11.2000 expressing his intent to bequeath all his assets in favour of the plaintiff including the suit property. In the year 2002, the plaintiff discovered that a sum of Rs.37,45,451/- besides interest thereon received by her from Bhola Nath Brother HUF was treated as a CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 6 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:41:45 +0530 loan to her by defendant no. 6 by filing false returns. The defendant no. 6 instead of discharging his obligations kept on giving false assurances to plaintiff from 1995 onwards.
6. The plaintiff claims that on the basis of the above explained family arrangement and pursuant to the payments made by the plaintiff, she became the owner of the suit property which was required to be mutated in favour of the plaintiff.
7. It is further claimed that despite resistance of the plaintiff defendant no. 6 let out a portion of the suit property and usurped the rental income.
8. It is further claimed that defendant no. 6 offered to pay proportionate sale proceeds of the share holding of T N Khanna HUF in Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd to the plaintiff. It is claimed that plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.19 Lakhs, out of the total sale proceeds of Rs.38 Lakhs, on account of sale of 20 shares in Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd of T N Khanna HUF. It is averred that under the influence of defendant no. 2 and 5, defendant no. 6 avoided to discharge his obligations and transferred the HUF property through a separate gift deed in favour of defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 5, to the exclusion of his other daughters. Defendant no. 6 not only failed to discharge his obligations under the family settlement but even unauthorizedly mis-appropriated the rental income and even threatened to dispossess the plaintiff.
CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 7 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date: 2025.02.07 16:41:52 +0530
Consequently, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the present suit seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) Pass a Judgment and Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants declaring the Plaintiff to be the owner of the Property consisting of land and building standing thereupon (known as Unit No.4) situate at 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi-110 011 as also the usufruct thereof and the one fourth undivided share in the aforesaid property which is still common.
(b) Pass a Judgment and Decree for specific performance/mandatory injunction against Defendant No.6 and in favour of the Plaintiff directing Defendant No.6 either by himself or as Karta, by a decree of mandatory injunction/specific performance to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff with respect to Unit No.4, 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi, alongwith the open land attached thereto as also in respect of the one fourth share in the common areas in the rear including the servant quarters.
(c) Pass a Judgment and Decree of Permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 8 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:41:59 +0530 Defendants restraining the Defendants their agents, servants, attorneys, heirs and assigns from selling, alienating, mortgaging, parting with possession, creating any third party interest or disturbing the possession of the Plaintiff in the entire property being Unit No.4 and the land appurtenant thereto situate on 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi-110021
(d) Pass Judgement and Decree of Accounts directing Defendant No.6 to render accounts in respect of the income derived from the property in question by way of rent from the tenant between April 2000 and September 2002 and the hire charges received from Birla Tata AT&T Ltd., New Delhi in respect of the Satellite Antenna installed on the terrace of the subject property w.e.f. April 2002 and, on accounts being taken, direct the said amount after accounting for the expenses incurred, to be paid to the Plaintiff.
(e) To pass a Judgment and Decree of accounts directing Defendant No.6 to render accounts in respect of sale of 20 shares of T.N.Khanna HUF held in Claridges Hotels Ltd., and to pay to the Plaintiff 50% of the sale consideration which is CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 9 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:42:06 +0530 Rs.19.00 lacs, according to the Plaintiff. Alternately, if this claim is treated as separately from the claim for accounts, pass a decree against Defendant No.6 directing the said Defendants to pay sum of Rs.19.00 lacs with pendentelite and future interest @ 15% per annum to the Plaintiff.
(f) Pass such other or further orders including directing the Defendants and particularly Defendant No.6, either in his personal capacity or its Karta of its HUF, to specifically perform their obligations, and other orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
(9) Award cost of the suit to the Plaintiff and against Defendant Nos. 2, 5 & 6.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
9. The defendant no. 1 and 3 have filed a joint written statement wherein they have taken preliminary objections that the plaintiff has no cause of action in her favour, hence the plaint is liable to be rejected under order VII rule 11 CPC; that the plaintiff has relied upon an alleged agreement of her rights in respect of the suit property but the plaint does not discloses the CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 10 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:42:12 +0530 date of the alleged agreement nor any document regarding the alleged agreement has been placed on record. It is averred that by an agreement dated 14.11.1994 the parties namely family groups of B N Khanna, M P Khanna, T N Khanna, S K Khanna and two companies Eastern International Hotels Ltd and Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd along with the other parties made a reference for arbitration and two Awards dated 18.05.1995 and 25.05.1995 were passed. The first award was in respect of separation and re-organization of the share holding in two companies namely Eastern International Hotels Ltd and Claridges Hotel Pvt. The second award was made to take and settle HUF/joint accounts and to partition HUF/joint assets of the family. In the second award Ld Arbitrator directed that each of the four family group namely B N Khanna, M P Khanna, T N Khanna and S K Khanna should be entitled to deal with their respective portion of the property. It is further averred that in the two awards, there is no observations to the effect that the plaintiff had been nominated by T N Khanna family group to pay a sum of Rs.7,12,710/- to T N Khanna-HUF, as consideration for acquiring rights, title and ownership in suit property. It is also not mentioned that the said payment is for the purpose of acquiring rights qua the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. It has been averred that whatever agreements were arrived at between the parties with respect to the issues mentioned in the plaint were duly recorded in writing in the arbitration proceedings. It is averred that except the awards, there is no other CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 11 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:42:19 +0530 agreement/understanding between the parties. It has been denied that there was any agreement for the plaintiff to acquire the title of the suit property for any consideration. It has also been denied that as a part of any alleged agreement, the plaintiff was required to or she had surrendered any of her interest in Eastern International Hotel Ltd or Devraha Investment pvt Ltd. It is averred that the sum of Rs.37,45,451/- was paid to the plaintiff under the settlement/award against her Eastern International Hotel shares. It is averred that the Articles of Association of Devraha Investment Private Limited were amended on 20.05.1995 but the same had not been amended on the basis of any compromise as claimed by the plaintiff. It is averred that a separate and independent issue was with respect to the property no. 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, among the co-lessees of the said property i.e. the four brothers B N Khanna, M P Khanna, T N Khanna and S K Khanna with regard to the use and enjoyment of the respective units allotted and owned by them. The payment of Rs.7,12,710/- to Bhola Nath Brothers by any person on behalf of T N Khanna had nothing to do with the property in dispute. It is claimed that the said payment has been made on behalf of T N Khanna(HUF) as directed by the arbitrator. It is averred that the fact of transferring second floor of property no 9-E, Connaught House Building and Basement of the said property by defendant no. 6 in favour of defendant no. 2 and 5 had come to the knowledge of defendant no 1 and 3 for the first time when summons of the suit were served upon them. It is claimed that the CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 12 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:42:26 +0530 defendant no. 6 could not have sold or gifted the properties to the exclusion or without the prior permission of other members of the family. With these averments, it has been prayed by defendant no. 1 and 3 that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
10. Separate written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 and 5 wherein defendant no 2 and 5 have taken the preliminary objections that the suit is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 CPC as no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff. It is averred that whatever agreements were arrived at between the parties, the same culminated into an award dated 18.05.1995 and 25.05.1995; that the suit has been barred by limitation; that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee. It is averred that the suit property belongs to T N Khanna(HUF). It is claimed that the payment, if any made by the plaintiff under any family settlement had nothing to do with the suit property. It is claimed that the litigation relating to Claridges Hotel is over and the plaintiff had received a substantial sum of Rs.3.36 crores. Defendant no. 2 and 5, while disputing the averments made in the plaint, they have also prayed for dismissal of the instant suit.
11. A separate written statement has been filed by defendant no. 4. It is claimed by defendant no. 4 that discussion were held between family members of the plaintiff and defendant no. 6 and in view of the fact that plaintiff was to surrender her entire CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 13 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:42:34 +0530 shareholding in EIHL and 50% share holding in Devraha Investment Pvt Ltd and certain payments were agreed to be made to the plaintiff by defendant no. 6. It is claimed that plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.7,12,710/- through two cheques to the HUF of defendant no. 6 to be eventually paid to Bholanath Brothers HUF. The amount was a part consideration for acquisition of absolute right, title or interest of the plaintiff in property in dispute. The plaintiff had raised the issue before defendant no 6 but needful could not be done because of non cooperation/inability of defendant no. 6. It is claimed that as per the Will, defendant no. 6 has bequeathed the entire ownership rights in Unit no. 4, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi along with land thereto and the undivided 1/4th share in the common areas in favour of the plaintiff. It is claimed that while the basement was in possession of the plaintiff along with first, second and third floor, at the time of filing of the suit and during the pendency of the suit, contrary to restraint order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, defendant no. 6 took forcible possession of the basement. It is admitted that defendant no 6 assured the plaintiff that he would get the property converted into freehold and have the property mutated in her favour by execution of a Conveyance deed also.
12. Defendant no. 6 also filed a separate written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff has instituted the present suit under the influence of defendant no. 4 by suppressing material facts. It is averred that plaintiff had CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 14 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:42:40 +0530 concealed that on 25.10.2000 plaintiff had executed a Will wherein she has acknowledged and confirmed that the suit property is owned by Shri Triloki Nath Khanna and that she and her husband are only two members of said HUF. It is claimed that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 CPC. Defendant no. 6 has reaffirmed the claim of defendant no.1 and
3.
13. Vide order dated 26.10.2010, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff paid Rs.7,12,710/- to Bhola Nath Brothers and also surrendered her shareholding in Eastern International Hotels(P) Ltd and Devraha Investment Pvt Ltd as alleged in the plaint?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff acquired ownership rights in respect of Unit No. 4, No. 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi on payment of Rs.7,12,710/- to Bhola Nath Brothers as alleged in the plaint?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of account from defendant no. 6?OPP
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged in the written statement?OPD
5. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?OPP
6. Relief.
Consequently, evidence was led in the instant case on behalf of CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 15 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:42:46 +0530 the plaintiff. Plaintiff stepped into the witness box and testified as PW-1 on the lines of her averments made in the plaint. She tendered her affidavit of examination in chief Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Sl DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT N o 1. Notice dated 25.10.2010 Ex.PW1/1 2. The award dated 18.05.95 Ex.PW1/2 3. Award dated 25.05.1995 Ex.PW1/3 4. Copy of the order dt 30.11.1995 Ex.PW1/4 5 Copy of the order dt 13.11.1995 Ex.PW1/5 6. Copy of agreement of partition dated Ex.PW1/6 29.03.1974
7. Statements of Affairs of Bhola Nath Brothers Ex.PW1/7 HUF issued by Chartered Accountant Shri R N Marwa.
8. Copy of the Ledger Account of ANZ Ex.PW1/8 Grindlays Bank of the plaintiff
9. Copy of the Ledger Account of ANZ Ex.PW1/9 Grindlays Bank of T N Khanna HUF 10 Copy of the Account Statement of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/10 with the ANJ Grindlays Bank 11 Letter dated 18.03.98 to the Assessing Officer Ex.PW1/11 12 The copy of affidavit of Shri Bhola Nath Ex.PW1/12 Khanna.
13 The copy of affidavit of Shri Mahadev Prasad Ex.PW1/13 Khanna.
14 The copy of affidavit of Shri Santosh Kumar Ex.PW1/14 Khanna.CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 16 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:42:53 +0530 15 The copy of affidavit of Shri T N Khanna. Ex.PW1/15 16 Copy of sale deed dated 30.04.2002 by T N Ex.PW1/16 Khanna in favour of Mrs Ruchi Ahuja(defendant no. 5) 17 Copy of sale deed dated 30.04.2002 by T N Ex.PW1/17 Khanna in favour of Mrs Pushpa Kakar(defendant no. 2) 18 Copy of gift deed dated 11.07.2002 in favour Ex.PW1/18 of Mrs Pushpa Kakar and Mrs Ruchi Ahuja 19 Copy of the letter dated 29.07.2002 written by Ex.PW1/19 defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 5 to M/s Lemuir Care Express 20 Site plan Ex.PW1/20 21 Copy of voter I Card Ex.PW1/21
14. The plaintiff was cross-examined by the counsel for defendant no. 2, 5 and 6. It appears that counsel for defendant no. 1, 3 and 4 have opted not to cross-examine the witness.
15. In her cross-examination, the plaintiff has admitted that there was no settlement between the family members of Shri T N Khanna. She has further admitted that whatever disputes were resolved, were resolved by the Ld Arbitrator. She has testified in her cross-examination that there was no settlement which took place between the family members of Sh T N Khanna after the Award passed by Ld Arbitrator. However, on the next date, during her cross-examination, she resiled from her earlier stand and volunteered that "However, there was an oral agreement between me and Shri T N Khanna that I will become the owner CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 17 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:43:00 +0530 of 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane in lieu of my 50% share in Devrah Investment Pvt Ltd to be surrendered in favour of Sh T N Khanna". She has claimed that this agreement took place simultaneously with the award passed by the Ld Arbitrator. She has further admitted that even on the date of her cross- examination i.e. 22.09.2012 property bearing no. 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane was an HUF property and there was no discussion regarding the said property being taken out of the purview of HUF property.
16. Vide separate statement of the plaintiff's counsel dated 31.07.2013, plaintiff evidence was closed in affirmative and the matter was posted for defendant's evidence.
17. However, before any evidence could be led on behalf of the defendants, defendant no. 6 expired in the instant matter on 16.01.2014 and by the order dated 27.08.2015 passed in OA No. 187/2014, Hon'ble Delhi High Court permitted the substitution of all the legal heirs of deceased defendant no. 6, in terms of Hindu Succession Act, to represent the estate of deceased defendant no. 6.
18. Subsequently, during the course of trial, even the plaintiff expired on 23.01.2016 and by the order dated 06.09.2018, defendant no. 4 was transposed as plaintiff in the instant matter.
CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 18 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date: 2025.02.07 16:43:07 +0530
19. However, while disposing of the application under order 22 rule 3 CPC, Ld Predecessor framed the following preliminary issue:
"Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in the present form"
The said preliminary issue being a legal issue was accordingly taken up for consideration.
20. Arguments on the preliminary issues heard at bar. Both the parties have also filed written submissions in support of their contentions.
21. I have considered the submissions made at bar and carefully gone through the material available on record.
22. Before proceeding ahead with the rival stands of the litigants with respect to the various reliefs claimed by the plaintiff, let us first examine the rival contentions with respect to the competence of the court to dispose of the instant suit upon the basis of the said preliminary issue.
23. It is forcefully argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the maintainability of the suit, on a legal issue, can only be tested under order 7 rule 11 CPC. It is submitted that while deciding the maintainability under order 7 rule 11 CPC the court cannot travel beyond the contents of the plaint and the defense of the defendant cannot be looked into. Counsel for the plaintiff has further argued CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 19 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:43:13 +0530 that a plaint cannot be rejected in parts and it ought to be either rejected or accepted as a whole. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Central Bank of India and Ors Vs Prabha Jain (MANU/SC/0095/2025) and (ii) Geeta vs Nanjundaswamy and Ors(MANU/SC/1199/2023). It is submitted that when the mixed questions of law and facts are involved the matter should not be disposed of in limine without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to prove its case and the plea of limitation cannot be decided in isolation. It is submitted that order 14 rule 2 CPC requires the court to pronounce judgment on all the issues unless an issue solely pertains to jurisdiction or a statutory bar.
24. On the contrary, counsel for the defendant no. 2(a), 2(b), defendant no. 5, defendant no. 1(a), 1(b) and defendant no. 3 have forcefully argued that order 14 rule 2 (2) CPC empowers the court to dispose of the suit on the basis of legal issue when the suit is barred by any law. It is submitted that the instant suit is barred by Law of Limitation and thus, the court should dispose of the issue under 14 rule 2 CPC.
25. However, in my considered opinion, besides order 7 rule 11 CPC and order 14 rule 2 CPC, order 15 rule 3 CPC permits the court to pronounce the judgment, after framing the issue, if the court is satisfied that no further argument or evidence, other than which the parties can at once adduce is required upon such CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 20 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:43:20 +0530 of the issues as may be sufficient for the decision of the suit, the court may proceed to determine such issue, and, if the findings thereon is sufficient for the decision, may pronounce judgment accordingly. The only rider is that it may not cause any injustice to any of the parties.
26. The provision was brought to the notice of the counsels during the course of the arguments. However, counsel for the plaintiff had resisted the application of order 15 rule 3 CPC contending that order 15 rule 3 CPC is not applicable in the present case. He has placed strong reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Kuldeep Singh Hooda vs Narender Mehlawat and Ors 2011(126) DRJ 685(DB).
27. In the case of Master Ansh Kapoor and Anr vs K.B Kapur and Ors decided on 12.02.2021 CS(OS) 3438/2014 and IA No 3789/2016-AIR 2021 DELHI 51 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:
"In this context, it is settled position of law that CPC does not require all matters to be decided only after trial or unless admissions are made. Issues are to be framed on material proposition of law and facts which the plaintiff alleges in order to show a right to sue or the defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. Where parties are CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 21 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:43:27 +0530 found not in issue on any question of law or fact, Order 15 CPC requires the court to at once pass a judgment."
28. The Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right of the litigants to receive speedy and expeditious justice. Order 15 Rule 3 CPC is infact the legislative gloss upon the constitutional clause. Evidently, order 15 CPC empowers the court to pronounce judgments when the parties are not found to be at variance on any issue of law or facts. In the matter of Kuldeep Singh Hooda (supra), the impugned order was set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench on the ground that neither was a preliminary issue settled nor was it indicated to Ld counsels for the parties that arguments are being heard on the maintainability of the suit. Whereas, in the case at hand, not only a preliminary issue was framed by the Ld Predecessor vide order dated 06.09.2018, the parties were also put to sufficient notice that they are required to address arguments on the issue of maintainability. In my considered opinion, in light of the material available on record, it would be in the interest of justice to exercise my powers vested under order 15 rule 3 CPC.
29. Let us now examine the maintainability of the suit with respect to the various reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the light of the arguments addressed at bar.
RELIEF (i) CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 22 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:43:36 +0530 The plaintiff herein has sought a declaration to the effect that she be declared the owner of the property in dispute and usefruct thereof and the one fourth undivided shares in the property in dispute which is still common.
The plaintiff has attempted to sustain her ownership claim upon the strength of an oral family settlement, which is not required to be compulsorily registered.
It is submitted by Ld counsel for the plaintiff that an oral settlement between the family members took place whereby it was agreed that property under dispute shall go in favour of the then plaintiff Smt Dayawati. It is further argued that the family settlement is not required to be compulsorily registered. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Subraya M.N vs Vittala M.N and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 5805 of 2016 decided on 05.07.2016. Counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on Satypal Gupta vs Sudhir Kumar Gupta (2016) 230 DLT 73. It is argued that prayer of plaintiff herein regarding declaration with respect to her ownership credentials in the instant matter is not hit by section 17 and section 49 of the Indian Registration Act as the claim from a family settlement is not required to be registered. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon the judgment in case titled Kale and Ors vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1968 decided on January 21, 1976 (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 119 wherein it has been observed that:CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 23 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:43:42 +0530 "Another argument advanced by Ld counsel for the respondent was that the family arrangement was not valid because the appellant had no title to the property so long as M.st vs Ram Pyari was in lawful possession of the property as the sole heir to Lachman, as if under the family arrangement any title was conveyed to the appellant, the said conveyance can only be by a registered instrument under the provisions of the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. This argument also, in our opinion, suffers from a serious mis-conception".
30. It is submitted that validity of the oral family settlement can only be tested in trial and section 9 of the CPC mandates the court to try all suits unless barred. It is submitted that order dated 11.03.2011, passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the instant matter was only a prima facie view and is not a final observation. It is thus submitted that the instant suit for the relief of declaration as prayed for is very much maintainable on the basis of an oral family settlement.
31. It would be worthwhile to observe herein that as per order 6 rule 4 CPC, in all cases in which parties pleadings relies on any misrepresentation fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to provide necessary particulars with respect to date and terms. In the case at hand the CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 24 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:43:50 +0530 requisite particulars with respect to the said family settlement are conspicuously missing. In the entire plaint, which evidently suffers from the vice of verbosity and prolixity, there appears to be an oblique design to conceal more than what is required to be revealed. The necessary particulars regarding the family settlement viz, the date and time of the settlement, who all were witness to the said settlement, who were privy to the said family settlement etc are conspicuously missing.
In this regard, I would like to place reliance in RFA(OS) 37/2015 decided on 21.07.2015 titled as Anil Gulati vs Promila Gulati wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:
"37. There is another aspect of the matter.
38. Revisiting the averments made in the written statement, we find that the defendant pleads that his father (father- in-law of the plaintiff) had purchased the plot over which the suit property is constructed from the father of the plaintiff and thereafter raised construction over the plot from his own funds and that of joint family business. The defendant further pleads that various decisions were taken regarding distribution of joint family properties between the members of family, one such decision being that Amrit Gulati, the husband of the plaintiff, through his wife i.e. the plaintiff shall be the owner of the ground floor of the suit property while the defendant shall be the owner of the first and second floors of the suit property.CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 25 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:44:04 +0530
39. Who took the decisions: All the family members or only some? Where were the decisions taken? On what day, month or year were the decisions taken? Nothing has been pleaded. The averments in the written statement are as vague as vagueness can be.
40. Rules of pleadings stand crystallized under various rules of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 2 of Order VI reads as under:-
"2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence - (1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.
(2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegations being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph.
(3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words."
41. Highlighting that the mandate of the Rule is that the pleadings must contain a statement in the concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for its claim or defence, it needs however be noted that Rule 4 of the same Order further CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 26 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:44:10 +0530 expands by requiring particulars to be given where necessary. Rule 4 of Order VI reads as under:-
"4. Particulars to be given where necessary - In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with date and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading."
42. In a leading pronouncement on the subject of pleadings, being the decision reported as 2011 (6) SCALE 677 Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors. highlighting how frivolous litigations are being instituted and how these frivolous litigations are choking the stream of justice, with reference to importance of pleadings, in sub-para A of para 52 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after suits are filed."
43. In the decision reported as 1987 (2) SCC 555 Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 27 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:44:16 +0530 LRs vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors, highlighting the object and purpose of pleadings, in para 6, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"6. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should settle the essential material facts so that the other party may not be taken by surprise."
44. With reference to the decisions reported as 1974 (6) BLR 368 Pandu Dhongi Yerudkar vs. Ananda Krishna Patil & Anr. and AIR 1982 Bom 491 M/s Nilesh Construction Company & Anr vs. Mrs. Gangubai & Ors, in the decision reported as AIR 1999 SC 1464 D.M.Deshpande & Ors vs. Janardhan Kashinath Kadam & Ors, in paras 9 and 11, the Supreme Court highlighted that a vague plea does not justify an issue being settled and further, where no material in support of a plea has been set up anywhere in any form, the Court would be justified in not settling an issue requiring the parties to traverse the torturous path of a trial. In said case, the Supreme Court observed qua claim for tenancy that in the absence of a concise statement of material facts relating to the tenancy, the mere raising of a plea of tenancy is not enough for the purpose of raising an issue. The Court cautioned against a pedantic approach to the problem and directed that Courts must ascertain the substance of the CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 28 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:44:22 +0530 pleading and not the form, in order to determine the same. It was observed that pertaining to a claim of tenancy, the exact nature of the right which is claimed is to be set-forth and no issue pertaining to existence of tenancy could be framed on a vague plea.
45. In the decision reported as 2012 (6) SCALE 340 A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam it was held as under:-
"27. The pleadings must set-forth sufficient factual details to the extent it reduces the ability to put forward a false or exaggerated claim or defence.
The pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility. If false averments, evasive denials or false denials are introduced, then the Court must carefully look into it while deciding a case and insist that those who approach the Court must approach it with clean hands."
46. In the decision reported as 2012 (5) SCC 370 Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria the Supreme Court held as under:-
"72. The Court will examine the pleadings for specificity as also the supporting material for sufficiency and then pass appropriate orders.
74. If the pleadings do not give sufficient details, they will not raise an issue, and the Court can reject claim or pass decree on admission.CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 29 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:44:29 +0530 On vague pleadings, no issue arises. Only when he so establishes, does the question of framing an issue arise. Framing of issues is an extremely important stage in a civil trial. Judges are expected to carefully examine the pleadings and documents before framing of issues in a given case.
xxx
78. The Court must ensure that the pleadings of a case must contain sufficient particulars. Insistence on details reduces the ability to put forward a non-existent or false claim or defence."
(Emphasis Supplied)
47. The written statement filed by the defendant lacks in material particulars and it has to be held that the so-called pleadings relating to an oral family settlement being arrived at between the parties contained in the written statement are no pleadings in the eyes of law. From the afore-noted decisions, it can be safely culled out that a vague plea, sans the particulars thereof, would be no plea in the eyes of law and no issue can be settled between the parties in relation thereto and no trial is warranted.
48. In view of above discussion the instant appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is thus dismissed with costs against the appellant and in favour of the respondent."
CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 30 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date: 2025.02.07 16:44:34 +0530
32. Although, it has been attempted to be argued that terms of settlement can be inferred upon reading the entire plaint but I am afraid that the arguments loses it sheen upon meticulous examination of the entire plaint.
33. The plaintiff in para no 12 A of the plaint, which is reproduced for ready reference, has simply averred that she was nominated by Shri T N Khanna family group to pay a sum of Rs.7,12,710/- to T N Khanna, HUF as consideration for acquiring right, title and ownership in property under dispute. Para no. 12 A of the plaint reads as under:
Para 12(a) That the plaintiff was nominated by Shri T N Khanna family group to pay a sum of Rs.7,12,710.00 to T N Khanna, HUS as consideration for acquiring right, title and ownership in property bearing Unit No. 4, No 21 A Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi.
34. I am of the considered opinion that the terms of the impugned family settlement must be sufficiently set out in the pleadings and cannot be subject matter of surmises and conjectures. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Parmod Kumar Jain & Anr Vs. Ram Kali Jain & Ors, CS(OS) 2454/2009 DOD 27.05.2020 wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while rejecting the plea of an oral family settlement, has observed here CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 31 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:44:42 +0530 as under :
"The contesting written statements also do not give any date of settlement. Had anything been orally decided amongst the four brothers with the blessings of the father, as pleaded in the contesting written statements, a date on which the said oral settlement would have been pleaded. No date, month or year of the oral family settlement has been pleaded."
35. Further, in order to sustain a claim of ownership upon the strength of a family settlement, the terms of settlement must be clearly set up in the plaint so as to reflect that one set of party to the family settlement has relinquished all their claims in respect of the suit property and recognised the right of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property. The relinquishment of rights by first party and recognition of rights of second party in the suit property is sine qua non for a valid family settlement.
36. I may place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation (supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the essentials of a valid family settlement has observed here as under:
".. 12. In Lala Khunni Lal vs. Kunwar Gobind Krishna CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 32 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:44:48 +0530 Narain (ILR 33 ALL 356; 8 ALJ 552) the statement of law regarding the essentials of a valid settlement was fully approved of by their Lordship of the Privy Council. In this connection the High Court made the following observations which were adopted by the Privy Council:
The Learned Judge say as follows:
The true character of the transaction appears to us to have been a settlement between the several members of the family of their disputes, each one relinquishing all claim in respect of all property in dispute other than that falling to his share, and recognizing the right of the others as they had previously asserted it to the portion allotted to them respectively. It was in this light, rather than as conferring a new distinct title on each other, that the parties themselves seem to have regarded the arrangement, and we think that it is the duty of the courts to uphold and give full effect to such an arrangement.
Their Lordships have no hesitation in adopting that view.
This decision was fully endorsed by a later decision of the Privy Council in Mt. Hiran Bibi v. Mt. Sohan Bibi."
37. Any averment in the plaint that defendant no. 6 CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 33 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:44:55 +0530 relinquished his claim in the suit property and recognised the absolute right, title or interest of the plaintiff in the suit property here is conspicuously missing. Even, the plaint read as a whole leaves no scope for such an inference regarding the relinquishment/ recognition of rights in favour of the plaintiff.
38. Above quoted para no 12 A of the plaint read with para no 14 of the plaint reflects that there was an understanding between the parties that plaintiff shall be making payment of Rs.7,12,710/- for acquiring the rights in the suit property. It is no where reflected in the plaint that acquisition of property under dispute by the plaintiff was complete in all respect.
39. Even if we take the best case of the plaintiff and presume that there was some family settlement, yet it is evident on record that said settlement was never acted upon. Throughout the plaint, it is nowhere pleaded by the plaintiff that the disputed property in fact fell in the share of the plaintiff herein absolutely, under the family settlement, to the exclusion of other family members.
In the case of Potti Lakshmi Perumallu v. Potti Krishnavenamm AIR 1965 SC 825 it was observed hereas under:
"No doubt, a family arrangement which is for the benefit of the family generally can be enforced in a court of law. But before the court would do so, it must CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 34 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:45:02 +0530 be shown that there was an occasion for effecting a family arrangement and that it was acted upon."
40. In para no 15 and para no. 18 of plaint, the plaintiff has generally and vaguely averred that she became owner of the suit property without furnishing the necessary particulars. Further, perusal of plaint would reveal that so-called family settlement as such was never acted upon. Para 14(i) and para 20 of the plaint in this regard would be relevant which is reproduced for ready reference:
"Para 14 (I) That to re-assure the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 6 meant to transfer absolute right, title and interest in the one fourth share in property number 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi which consisted of the dwelling unit number 4 alongwith land appurtenant thereto and the undivided one fourth share in the real portion of the said property, the Defendant No. 6 executed a Will which was registered on 14.11.2000 before the Sub Registrar, New Delhi, thereby bequeathing the entire one fourth share in 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi in favour of the Plaintiff.
................................................
Para (20) That after the Award, Defendant No. 6 let CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 35 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:45:10 +0530 out the upper Duplex Flat of the property in question at a rent of Rs. 60,000.00 per month between April 2000 and September 2002, whereafter the said premises were vacated by the tenant. However, in April 2002, Defendant No. 6 let out against the wishes of Plaintiff, the terrace above the said Unit No. 4 on a monthly hire charge in excess of Rs. 60,000.00 by permitting Birla Tata AT&T Ltd, New Delhi to install its Satellite Antenna in respect of the Mobile Phone Service being marketed under the name 'IDEA'. In this manner, Defendant No.6 received the entire rent for 30 months amounting to Rs. 18.00 lacs (Rupees eighteen lacs only) and the hire charges for 11 months amounting to Rs. 7.00 lacs (Rupees seven lacs) approximately. Defendant No.6 is liable to render true and faithful accounts to the Plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid money and is liable to make good the said money to the Plaintiff after accounting for and deducting the justified charges/expenses."
41. Perusal of above quoted para 14(I) would reveal that even as late as on 14.11.2000, defendant no. 6 considered the property in dispute to be his own property and thus the Will was executed in favour of the plaintiff, without any demur on the part of the CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 36 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:45:17 +0530 plaintiff. Similarly, para no. 20 would reveal that it was defendant no. 6, who let out the property in dispute and despite the objections of the plaintiff, he was receiving and enjoying the rent of the property. Thus, it cannot be said that the understanding between the family members culminated into a binding family settlement, traveling beyond the zone of negotiations and assurances. In para no. 33 of the plaint, for the first time, the plaintiff makes a mention of family settlement yet she stopped short of claiming that under the said family settlement, property in dispute fell into her share.
42. Consequently, assertion of counsel for plaintiff that she is entitled to ownership of the property in dispute upon the basis of the family settlement is without merits on the following counts.
1. Absence of requisite particulars in the plaint.
2. Any stipulation in the family settlement to the effect that the family members relinquished their claim in the suit property, duly recognizing the ownership of the plaintiff, is not discernible from the perusal of the plaint. It appears that no right in praesenti was created in favour of the plaintiff and it was merely an assurance by the defendant no. 6 to the plaintiff.
3. Family settlement remained inchoate and was never acted upon.
4. The so called family settlement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 6 is at best a loan transaction between the plaintiff CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 37 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:45:23 +0530 and defendant no. 6. I am bolstered in my opinion on this count by the observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this very matter when, while disposing off I.A. No. 5998/2004 DOD :
11.03.2011, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed here as under :
"6. Assuming however that the plaintiff had made payments and sacrificed financial interests as claimed by her, prima facie, to my mind that would not confer absolute ownership rights on the plaintiff in Unit no. 4 in the property No. 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi. The payment, if any, made by her on behalf of T N Khanna, HUF, of which she also is a member, may though amount only to a loan from her to the HUF. The ownership rights in an immovable property cannot be transferred by way of such oral understandings. This can be done only by executing a registered instrument evidencing transfer of ownership from one person/entity to another person. Therefore, prima facie, it is difficult to accept that the plaintiff is the sole owner of Unit No. 4 in the property no. 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi."
43. Although, it can be argued that the above quoted observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are not conclusive in nature and merely a prima facie opinion was given by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. However, the cross-examination of the CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 38 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:45:29 +0530 plaintiff conducted on 26.07.2012 clinches the issue. In her cross- examination, pursuant to a question put by the defence counsel, plaintiff has categorically testified that there has never been any settlement between the family members of Sh. K M Khanna. The relevant portion of the cross-examination dated 26.07.2012 is reproduced herein for ready reference :
"Question: Please tell, whether any disputes between the family members of Sh. T.N. Khanna were resolved in writing by a written agreement? Answer : There has never been any settlement between the family members of Sh. T.N. Khanna.
It is correct that whatever disputes were resolved, were resolved by Justice Mohan Lal Verma. There was not any settlement which took place between the family members of Sh.T.N. Khanna after the awards passed by Justice M.L. Verma. It is correct that I received an amount of Rs.37,45,451/- towards the share holding of Easter International Hotels Ltd. vide the awards."
44. Further, during the subsequent course of cross-examination on 22.09.2012, she has admitted that even on the date of cross- examination, property bearing no. 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, was an HUF Property and there was no discussion regarding the said property being taken out of the purview of HUF property.
CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 39 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date: 2025.02.07 16:50:49 +0530
Although, she has subsequently volunteered that there was an oral agreement between her and defendant no. 6 that she shall become owner of the property in lieu of her 50% share in Devraha Investments Pvt. Ltd. to be surrendered in favour of defendant no. 6. Even this voluntary ipse dixit statement of the plaintiff stops short of conclusively endorsing the claim of the plaintiff that some ownership claim ' in prasenti' was recognized by way of the impugned family settlement.
45. Since, I am acting under Order 15 Rule 3 CPC, I find no harm in referring to the evidence available on record to clear the cobwebs surrounding the plaintiff's claim. In light of the prima facie opinion of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 11.03.2011 (supra) coupled with the cross-examination of the plaintif, I have no hesitation in observing that the ownership claim of the plaintiff upon the strength of an oral family settlement is bereft of any merits and deserves to be discarded. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any ownership rights in the property in dispute upon the strength of alleged family settlement and the suit of the plaintiff cannot be permitted to continue on this count.
46. Besides the abovesaid lacunae in the plaintiff's claim, the issue of limitation is another important aspect which needs thorough examination.
CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 40 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date: 2025.02.07 16:50:55 +0530
47. As per Article 58 of the Scheduled appended with the Indian Limitation Act, period of limitation to seek any declaration would be three years w.e.f. the date when right to sue first accrues. The plaint is very vague and sketchy with respect to the exact date as to when the right to sue first accrued. In the plaint, the plaintiff has not bothered to reveal the exact date and time of the alleged oral family settlement. She has also failed to reveal as to when defendant no. 6 refused to act upon his obligations under the said oral family settlement. In her cross- examination dated 26.07.2012, plaintiff has claimed that there was no settlement which took place between the family members of Sh. T N Khanna after the awards were passed by the Hon'ble Arbitrator. She has further revealed that the two awards were dated 18.05.1995 and 25.05.1995. Therefore, one can safely infer that the impugned oral family settlement took place on 18.05.1995/25.05.1995. The plaint is silent as to if the parties to the family settlement set out some time limit to honor their commitments. In my considered opinion, the right to sue in this case would definitely accrue on the date when defendant no. 6 conveyed his intention not to honor his commitment under the oral family settlement. In para no. 14(f) of the plaint, plaintiff claims that the award became rule of the Court in November 1995 and defendant no. 6 was required to get the property mutated in favour of T.N. Khanna HUF first and thereafter in favour of plaintiff. Para no. 14(f) also mentions that there were various schemes of the government, which had already come, CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 41 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:51:02 +0530 permitted the conversion of lease hold properties into freehold. Yet, defendant no. 6 delayed the assured mutation. In para no. 41, plaintiff has clarified that cause of action arose in June 1999, when the government of India came out with a scheme permitting the conversion of large residential properties, which were on lease hold basis to freehold basis. In para no. 14(g), plaintiff further mentions that she 'waited till the year 1999' and kept reminding defendant no. 6 about his obligations. Consequently, it would not be incorrect to infer that at least by the end of 1999, defendant no. 6 repudiated the impugned settlement and refused to act upon it. The inordinate long period of wait, for an excessively long period of about 04 years after the date of award, coupled with the use of the words by the plaintiff that she waited till 1999, unequivocally conveys that the right to sue definitely accrued in favour of the plaintiff on 31.12.1999. The limitation in the case at hand accordingly expired on 30.12.2002. The case in hand was filed on 05.03.2003 i.e. way beyond the period of limitation. In my considered opinion, the suit at hand is hopelessly time barred and deserves to be dismissed.
48. Now let us examine the second relief sought by the plaintiff which is reproduced as under:
(b) Pass a judgment and decree for specific performance/mandatory injunction against defendant no. 6 in favour of the plaintiff CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 42 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:51:07 +0530 directing defendant no. 6 either by himself or as Karta, by a decree of mandatory injunction/specific performance to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to Unit No. 4, 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi along with the open land attached thereto as also in respect of one fourth share in the common areas in the rear including servant quarter.
49. It is argued by the ld counsel for plaintiff that even though the relief of declaration, as sought in the plaint, is not found to be maintainable, yet the instant suit of the plaintiff would still prevail as in prayer clause 44(b) the plaintiff herein has sought specific performance of the oral agreement between the parties. It is argued that the suit for specific performance even for an oral agreement is still maintainable. It is also argued that suit is very much maintainable and cannot be rejected partially.
50. In order to create binding obligations upon HUF, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to aver and prove that Sh. T N Khanna, acting as Karta of HUF entered into a transaction with the plaintiff herein for the benefit of HUF. Ld counsel for plaintiff has fairly conceded that necessary averments in the instant pleadings are essentially missing. Therefore, even if for CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 43 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:51:14 +0530 the sake of arguments, an oral understanding between T N Khanna and the plaintiff is presumed to be correct yet same is not sufficient to bind the HUF property unless Sh. T N Khanna entered into the impugned transaction with the plaintiff as a Karta of HUF property. In the absence of necessary averments, so called agreement is not sufficient to seek the specific performance of an agreement against an HUF property. Reliance in this regard is once placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in RFA (OS) 37/2015 decided on 21.07.2015 titled as Anil Gulati vs Promila Gulati, RFA(OS) 37/2015.
51. In my considered opinion, some vague and general assertions are not sufficient to create binding legal obligations in the absence of necessary pleadings and no triable issue arises.
This relief cannot be granted to the plaintiff. The reliance is placed upon Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs. & Ors, 2012 (5) SCC 370.
52. Now let us examine the remaining reliefs (c) and (d) as sought by the plaintiff.
Relief (c) and (d), are reproduced here as under:
Relief c- "Pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, attorney, heirs and assigns CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 44 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:51:20 +0530 from selling, alienating, mortgaging parting with possession, creating any third party interest of disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the entire property being Unit No. 4 and the land appurtenant thereto situated on 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi-11021.
Relief (d). Pass judgment and decree of accounts directing defendant no. 6 to render accounts in respect of the income derived from the property in question by way of rent from the tenant between April 2000 and September 2002 and the hire charges received from Birla Tata AT&T, New Delhi in respect of the Satellite Antenna installed on the terrace of the subject property w.e.f April 2002 and, on account being taken, direct the said amount after accounting for the expenses incurred, to be paid to the plaintiff."
53. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff is essentially based upon her ownership claim in the suit property. In view of my above discussion, plaintiff cannot claim any exclusive ownership right over the suit property and cannot thus seek the relief of permanent injunction or rendition of accounts against family members. The relief of permanent injunction is barred under 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act and even the plaintiff cannot seek rendition of accounts as she has failed to establish her ownership CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 45 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:51:25 +0530 credentials. It is not the case wherein she is seeking rendition of accounts as a member of HUF but she is attempting to sustain her claim upon the strength of her ownership claim in the suit property. Thus, I am afraid that even these reliefs cannot be granted to her and continuation of the suit for this purpose shall be an absolutely futile exercise.
54. Now, let us examine the last and final relief claimed by the plaintiff.
Relief (e) "To pass a judgment and decree of accounts directing defendant no. 6 to render accounts in respect of sale of 20 shares of T N Khanna HUF held in Claridges Hotel Ltd., and to pay to the plaintiff 50% of the sale consideration which is Rs.19 Las, according to the plaintiff. Alternately, if this claim is treated as separately from the claim for accounts, pass a decree against Defendant no. 6 directing the said defendants to pay a sum of Rs.19 Lakhs with pendentlite and future interest @15% per annum to the plaintiff"
55. It is argued by Ld counsel for plaintiff that besides the relief of specific performance, vide prayer clause no. 44(e) the plaintiff had also sought recovery of 50% of the sale consideration ie Rs.19 Lakhs along with pendente lite and future interest.
CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 46 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date: 2025.02.07 16:51:31 +0530
56. With respect to this relief, Ld counsel for defendants have given a joint statement, which is reproduced herein as under for ready reference:
"We are the counsel for aforementioned defendants. We had duly consulted our clients before making this statement. We have duly clarified to our clients that the instant suit can be disposed off solely and exclusively on the basis of the instant statement. We have also made it clear that the instant statement shall give rise to binding obligations and the parties may also be held liable for contempt proceedings, if they failed to honour the instant statement. On behalf of out clients, we voluntarily undertake to suffer a decree for Rs.19 Lakhs with interest at the rate to be determined by the Court in favour of the original plaintiff Smt Dayawati Khanna/her estate. The defendants shall remain bound by the instant statement."
57. The plaintiff herein has sought Rs. 19 lakhs from defendant no. 6, on account of sale of 20 shares of T.N. Khanna HUF. The defendants have opted not to contest this claim. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed against defendant no. 6 on this ground.
58. Consequently, on this count, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the suit as CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 47 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:51:40 +0530 defendants have voluntarily undertaken to suffer a decree of Rs. 19 Lakhs.
In view of the same, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be partially decreed for a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs against defendant no.
6. Plaintiff has also sought interest @ 15% per annum upon this amount. Admittedly there is no stipulated rate of interest or any contract between the parties on this count. The demanded rate of interest @ 15% per annum seems to be without any justification. However, acting under section 34 of CPC, I am of the considered view that a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs deserves to be decreed against defendant no. 6, along with pendente lite interest i.e. from the date of institution of the suit to the date of decree @7% per annum along with future interest @ 4% from the date of decree till its realization.
59. Consequently, decreetal sum is required to be paid by defendant no. 6 i.e. T N Khanna. Shri T N Khanna in the instant case had already expired and the sum shall accordingly be recovered from the estate of Shri T N Khanna inherited by the legal heirs of deceased Sh. T N Khanna.
60. The suit is accordingly partially decreed for a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs along with pendente lite interest @ 7% per annum i.e. from the date of institution of the suit to the date of decree along with future interest @4% from the date of decree till its CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 48 of 49 Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:51:47 +0530 realization in favour of the plaintiff and against legal heirs of deceased defendant no. 6 to be recovered from his estate. The suit accordingly stands disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Parties are to bear their own cost.
61. File be consigned to record room.
62. Ordered accordingly.Digitally signed by DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER RANA RANA Date:
2025.02.07 16:51:55 Pronounced in open Court +0530 on 07.02.2025 (Dharmender Rana) District Judge-01, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CS NO. 57773/16 Smt Dayawati Khanna vs Smt Suman Mehra and Ors Page 49 of 49