J.P. Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.9021/2014 (condonation of delay)

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 149 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. 2014:DHC:2779 + RSA No.132/2014

3. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 29.2.2012 and the first appellate court dated 16.5.2013; by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking transfer of the registration of his late son Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar of a HIG plot in the name of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed.

4. The facts of the case are that Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar, son of the appellant got himself registered with the respondent/defendant/DDA for allotment of a HIG plot vide application no.55380 dated 11.4.1981. Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar had deposited an FDR alongwith the application and also deposited Rs.5,000/- vide the registration receipt no.844/81. Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar thereafter unfortunately expired on 5.4.1988. Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar was survived by his wife and a minor daughter of about six months.

5. The appellant/plaintiff claims that the wife and minor daughter left the house after the death of Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar and are not traceable and consequently the appellant/plaintiff/father is the only legal heir in whose name the registration should be transferred by the DDA.

6. Both the courts below noted that the appellant/plaintiff is a class-II legal heir because there are class-I legal heirs being the widow and the minor child of the deceased Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar. The courts below have accordingly held that the appellant/plaintiff would not have a right more so because the appellant/plaintiff had concealed the details of the addresses of the widow and the minor child. The courts below note that on the one hand the appellant/plaintiff claims that he has no knowledge of the address of the widow and the minor child, simultaneously it is also stated by the appellant/plaintiff that the widow subsequently remarried and which showed that appellant was aware of the address of the widow and the minor child. The courts below also note that the marriage of Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar was an arranged marriage and therefore the appellant would in any case know the address of the parents of the widow and could have consequently easily traced out the address of the widow and the minor child but that has not been done because the appellant wants to get the registration of the plot mutated in his name, although the legal right is of the class-I legal heirs being the widow and the minor child.

7. I do not find any error of fact or of law in the impugned judgments of the courts below, much less a substantial question of law arising under Section 100 CPC for this appeal to be entertained, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. MAY 23, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne