Satish Chand v. Dalbir Singh

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 3rd February, 2021 by which the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 20th July, 2020 has been upheld by the Appellate Court.

3. The property in question is property bearing No.P-24, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi-110091 (hereinafter, “suit property”). Mr. Dalbir Singh - the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) had filed a suit for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and mesne profits against the Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter, “Defendants”), who are the elder son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the Plaintiff.

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the third floor with terrace in the suit property. According to the Plaintiff, he had purchased the suit property in 1987. In 1996, he transferred ownership of the suit property in favour of his wife - Smt. Nepali. The case of the Appellants is that upon 2021:DHC:2535 the death of the Plaintiff’s wife, the son executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the father under the assurance that the suit property would be bequeathed equally upon the two sons. The said relinquishment deed was registered on 27th July, 2015. However, the father changed his mind and the earlier Will dated 11th August, 2015, which was executed giving both the sons an equal share in the suit property was cancelled and a new Will was executed by the Plaintiff-father on 25th July, 2016. On the basis of this new Will and the fact that the Plaintiff has disowned the Appellants herein by issuing a public notice, the Plaintiff-father sought a mandatory and permanent injunction against the Appellants for eviction of the Appellants herein from the suit property.

5. In the suit, the impugned order was passed on 20th July, 2020 in the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The findings of the Trial Court are that the Defendants in the suit did not dispute the fact that the father was the owner of the suit property; the only defence is that the relinquishment deed was executed under the clear assurance by the father that half of the suit property would devolve upon Appellant No.1. The Trial Court, however, clearly observed that the relinquishment deed having been executed, the decree is liable to be passed. The relevant findings of the Trial Court are as under:

6. The Appellate Court has upheld the said decree vide the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2021. The relevant findings of the Appellate Court are as under:

7. The Appellate Court observed that there is no dispute as to the execution of the relinquishment deed and the deed itself is clear that the Respondent/Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. In view of this, the Appellants’ contention that the relinquishment deed was executed with the pre-condition that the Respondent shall partition the property in question cannot be accepted as the same is contrary to the written text of the relinquishment deed and in contravention of Sections 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972.

8. Mr. Rahul Sharma, ld. counsel submits that the assurance given by the Plaintiff-father has not been honoured by him and therefore, he should be bound by his assurance as, if not for the assurance, the relinquishment deed would not have been executed.