Neelam Kapoor and Ors. v. Jagdish Lal Dua through LRs

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 27.1.2006 whereby the suit for declaration has been stayed under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. Disputes are with respect to the property bearing no.B-IV/15, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Petitioners/plaintiffs are legal heirs of Sh. Mohan Lal. They claim that Sh. Mohan Lal was the sole owner of the property. On the other hand, the brother of Sh. Mohan Lal, Sh. Bhag 2014:DHC:3314 Chand claims to be the co-owner of the property because Sh. Bhag Chand claims that he was gifted by his mother Smt. Assi Bai (also mother of Sh. Mohan Lal) her interest in the suit property. Sh. Bhag Chand therefore claimed co-ownership under the gift deed in the suit property.

3. In the suit, two aspects have been urged by the petitioners/plaintiffs. One is that the Will of Sh. Bhag Chand is forged and fabricated and the second aspect is that Sh. Bhag Chand had no right to make the Will because Sh. Bhag Chand himself had no right, title and interest in the suit property which was of Sh. Mohan Lal.

4. The court below has held that since the earlier civil suit proceedings by which Sh. Bhag Chand had sought partition and possession of the suit property was decided in his favour by the judgment and decree dated 16.1.1999 and which is appealed before this Court in RFA No.242/1999 titled as Neelam Kapoor & Ors. Vs. Bhag Chand & Ors., hence, the issue that whether or not Sh. Bhag Chand was having a right, title and interest in the property is subject matter of the earlier proceedings between the same parties and therefore the suit cannot continue and has to be stayed under Section 10 CPC.

5. I completely agree because disputes between the parties or under whom they or any of them claim or between their legal heirs with respect to the same issues cannot be re-agitated once they are already decided in an earlier civil proceedings. In the earlier civil proceedings, and with respect to which RFA No.242/1999 is pending, the issue in the present case is directly and substantially in issue of whether or not Sh. Mohan Lal was the sole owner of the suit property or Sh. Bhag Chand had a right in the same. Therefore, the trial court has rightly exercised powers under Section 10 CPC.

6. So far as the aspect that the petitioners/plaintiffs claim that Sh. Bhag Chand had not executed the Will is concerned, it is noted that petitioners/plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Sh. Bhag Chand and hence they have no locus standi to question the Will of Sh. Bhag Chand and only legal heirs of Sh. Bhag Chand would have a right to question the validity of the Will.

7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 17, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne