Also At: L-7 vs Smt. Laxmi Devi on 29 November, 2018
2 Suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees
Case No. 12232/16 Ram Avtar Gupta vs Laxmi Devi 3/17
and jurisdiction. The suit property is worth more than Rs. 50,00,000/- at
the time of filing of the suit, therefore, plaint is liable to be dismissed or the
plaintiff is liable to file the deficient court fees (defendant has not proved
these facts and allegations by leading evidence?). Plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit property which is in exclusive and peaceful
possession of defendant. Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean
hands and suppressed material facts. That the defendant has already sold
her share of suit property in favour of Hari Prakash S/o Sh. Anand
Prakash through agreement to sell and purchase dated 07.02.2008.
Therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary
party. Plaintiff has no right on the suit property as in the family
settlement, plaintiff disposed off his share in favour of defendant in
1996. Thereafter, plaintiff has been residing at house no. A-56, Inder
Enclave, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Delhi and has no connection with suit
property. Suit is barred by Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act. Section
41(h) of Specific Relief Act says that "injunction cannot be granted when
equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode
of proceedings except in case of breach of trust." (what is this efficacious
remedy available to the plaintiff in this case has been neither pleaded nor
explained by the defendant) Suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as
plaintiff handed over the possession of suit property in 1996 after taking
the settlement amount.