Full Text
Translation output
RSA No.145/2014 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 03, 2014 RSA No.145/2014 & CM Nos.9736/14, 9737/14, 9738/14
SH DEEPAK SAREEN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Shagun Mehta, Advocate
Date of Decision: December 03, 2014 RSA No.145/2014 & CM Nos.9736/14, 9737/14, 9738/14
SH DEEPAK SAREEN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Shagun Mehta, Advocate
VERSUS
SMT. JANAK KUMARI THR LRs ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Anita Kapoor, Advocate
Through: Ms.Anita Kapoor, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
The concurrent findings returned by the courts below are that appellants were mere licensee in the suit premises and upon termination of their license, they have become trespassers. The courts below have directed appellants to vacate the suit property.
The factual background of this case is already noticed in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment and needs no reproduction. It would suffice to note that appellant No.1 had relinquished his share in the suit property in favour of his mother, vide Relinquishment Deed
Ex.PW1/A of 06.03.1997 and the brothers appellant No.1 had also relinquished their share in favour of their mother. Since mother of appellant No.1 was ill-treated by appellants, therefore she had to file a suit seeking permanent injunction to direct appellants to vacate the suit property and by way of a Will, she had bequeathed the suit property in
2014:DHC:6674 RSA No.145/2014 Page 2 favour of her other three sons who have now stepped into the shoes of their mother as the mother of the parties has died during the pendency of the suit. Although Will is not the subject-matter in the suit but it deserves notice that appellant No.1 was debarred from her estate by the plaintiff vide publication in the newspaper on 21st May, 2009 (Ex.PW1/D). The finding returned by the courts below is that appellant No.1 has not disputed his signatures on the Relinquishment Deed and so by relying upon the Relinquishment Deed (Ex.PW1/A) injunction has been issued against appellant to vacate the suit property. At the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that issue regarding the genuineness of the Relinquishment Deed in question has not been framed although there are pleadings that the Relinquishment Deed was forged, fabricated and the same was without any consideration and the respondents have failed to prove that in lieu of execution of
Relinquishment Deed, they had paid `2,00,000/- to appellant No.1.
Learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that since the existence of the
Relinquishment Deed is established from evidence on record, therefore there is no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgment of the courts below, copy of the Relinquishment Deed in question and the copy of the cross examination of appellant No.1, I find that although it is not proved that
Relinquishment Deed Ex.PW1/A was executed for consideration or out of love and affection but from the cross examination of appellant No.1, it becomes evident that appellant No.1 has not disputed his signatures on the Relinquishment Deed in question and so judgment of the courts below
RSA No.145/2014 Page 3 based upon the Relinquishment Deed in question do not suffer from any perversity. I find no substantial question of law in the Second Appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, this appeal and the applications are dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 03, 2014 ks
The concurrent findings returned by the courts below are that appellants were mere licensee in the suit premises and upon termination of their license, they have become trespassers. The courts below have directed appellants to vacate the suit property.
The factual background of this case is already noticed in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment and needs no reproduction. It would suffice to note that appellant No.1 had relinquished his share in the suit property in favour of his mother, vide Relinquishment Deed
Ex.PW1/A of 06.03.1997 and the brothers appellant No.1 had also relinquished their share in favour of their mother. Since mother of appellant No.1 was ill-treated by appellants, therefore she had to file a suit seeking permanent injunction to direct appellants to vacate the suit property and by way of a Will, she had bequeathed the suit property in
2014:DHC:6674 RSA No.145/2014 Page 2 favour of her other three sons who have now stepped into the shoes of their mother as the mother of the parties has died during the pendency of the suit. Although Will is not the subject-matter in the suit but it deserves notice that appellant No.1 was debarred from her estate by the plaintiff vide publication in the newspaper on 21st May, 2009 (Ex.PW1/D). The finding returned by the courts below is that appellant No.1 has not disputed his signatures on the Relinquishment Deed and so by relying upon the Relinquishment Deed (Ex.PW1/A) injunction has been issued against appellant to vacate the suit property. At the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that issue regarding the genuineness of the Relinquishment Deed in question has not been framed although there are pleadings that the Relinquishment Deed was forged, fabricated and the same was without any consideration and the respondents have failed to prove that in lieu of execution of
Relinquishment Deed, they had paid `2,00,000/- to appellant No.1.
Learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that since the existence of the
Relinquishment Deed is established from evidence on record, therefore there is no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgment of the courts below, copy of the Relinquishment Deed in question and the copy of the cross examination of appellant No.1, I find that although it is not proved that
Relinquishment Deed Ex.PW1/A was executed for consideration or out of love and affection but from the cross examination of appellant No.1, it becomes evident that appellant No.1 has not disputed his signatures on the Relinquishment Deed in question and so judgment of the courts below
RSA No.145/2014 Page 3 based upon the Relinquishment Deed in question do not suffer from any perversity. I find no substantial question of law in the Second Appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, this appeal and the applications are dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 03, 2014 ks