Full Text
Translation output
I r $-4 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.R.P. 1472/2017
SURENDERPASSI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mobin Akhtar,Adv.
C.R.P. 1472/2017
SURENDERPASSI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mobin Akhtar,Adv.
VERSUS
SUMAN LATA PASSI&ORS Respondent
Through: Mr,YS Chauhan,Adv.for R-1 to 7.
None for R-8.
Through: Mr,YS Chauhan,Adv.for R-1 to 7.
None for R-8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
26.07.2018 The respondentno.8 arrayed on record is a proforma party.
Submissions have been made on behalfofeither side.
Vide the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 ofthe Court ofthe Civil Judge, South-East, Saket Courts in CS No.50964/16 whereby an application under Order 12 Rule 6 ofthe
CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the said suit in view of the submissions in the written statement of the defendant nos. 1 & 2 was declined it having been observed to the effectthatthe defendants have raised objections which go to the rootofthe case and it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 ofthe CPC.
The plaintiff i.e. the present petitioner instituted the suit against the defendant for reliefofdeclaration qua the relinquishment deed registered in the office ofthe Sub-Registrar i.e.the respondent no.8to the presentpetition arrayed as defendantno.8 to the said suitsubmitting thatthe same was
26.07.2018 The respondentno.8 arrayed on record is a proforma party.
Submissions have been made on behalfofeither side.
Vide the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 ofthe Court ofthe Civil Judge, South-East, Saket Courts in CS No.50964/16 whereby an application under Order 12 Rule 6 ofthe
CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the said suit in view of the submissions in the written statement of the defendant nos. 1 & 2 was declined it having been observed to the effectthatthe defendants have raised objections which go to the rootofthe case and it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 ofthe CPC.
The plaintiff i.e. the present petitioner instituted the suit against the defendant for reliefofdeclaration qua the relinquishment deed registered in the office ofthe Sub-Registrar i.e.the respondent no.8to the presentpetition arrayed as defendantno.8 to the said suitsubmitting thatthe same was
C.R.P. 1472/2017 pageno.lof3
2018:DHC:8497
•J prepared on the basis ofaforged will,claimed to have been executed by Ms. Gomti Devi and also on the basis ofa gift deed which is also stated to be registered in the office ofthe defendant no.8 i.e. the respondent no.8 to the present petition and on the basis ofa forged will allegedly executed by Shri
Mohan Passi stated to be brother ofthe petitioner submitting to the effect thatthe same be declared null and void with a restraint againstthe defendant nos. 1,2,5,6&7from creating third party interest over properties bearing no.1/81 and 1/83, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi on the strength of and claims based on the relinquishment deed dated 26.07.2012 and gift deed dated
13.12.2012.
It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein that in the written statement of the defendant nos. 1 & 2 there are submissions in relation to typographical error and reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on para 5 & 6 of the written statement of the defendant nos. 1 &2 which reads to the effect that:
"Thatthe contents ofpara 5-6oftheplaintare wronganddenied.
It is submitted that some clerical mistakes were occurred due to some communication gap between the DefendantNos. 1, 2, 5, 6& 7 and the document writer in the relinquishment deed dated
26.07.2012, however, those mistakes are now already rectified through the rectification deed.Even otherwise those mistakes do not go to the root ofthe matter as the very basis ofthe relinquishment deed dated 26.07.2012 was a Will duly registered in the office of sub-registrar dated 21.11.2007infavour ofDefendantNos. 1,2,5, 6& 7executed by Smt. GomatiDevi W/o Late ShriDurga Prasad
Passi who was real and absolute owner ofthe suitproperty bearing
No.1/83, Nehur Nagar, New Delhi-110065. It is, therefore, submittedthatthe abovesaid mistakes occurredinadvertently in
2018:DHC:8497
•J prepared on the basis ofaforged will,claimed to have been executed by Ms. Gomti Devi and also on the basis ofa gift deed which is also stated to be registered in the office ofthe defendant no.8 i.e. the respondent no.8 to the present petition and on the basis ofa forged will allegedly executed by Shri
Mohan Passi stated to be brother ofthe petitioner submitting to the effect thatthe same be declared null and void with a restraint againstthe defendant nos. 1,2,5,6&7from creating third party interest over properties bearing no.1/81 and 1/83, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi on the strength of and claims based on the relinquishment deed dated 26.07.2012 and gift deed dated
13.12.2012.
It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein that in the written statement of the defendant nos. 1 & 2 there are submissions in relation to typographical error and reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on para 5 & 6 of the written statement of the defendant nos. 1 &2 which reads to the effect that:
"Thatthe contents ofpara 5-6oftheplaintare wronganddenied.
It is submitted that some clerical mistakes were occurred due to some communication gap between the DefendantNos. 1, 2, 5, 6& 7 and the document writer in the relinquishment deed dated
26.07.2012, however, those mistakes are now already rectified through the rectification deed.Even otherwise those mistakes do not go to the root ofthe matter as the very basis ofthe relinquishment deed dated 26.07.2012 was a Will duly registered in the office of sub-registrar dated 21.11.2007infavour ofDefendantNos. 1,2,5, 6& 7executed by Smt. GomatiDevi W/o Late ShriDurga Prasad
Passi who was real and absolute owner ofthe suitproperty bearing
No.1/83, Nehur Nagar, New Delhi-110065. It is, therefore, submittedthatthe abovesaid mistakes occurredinadvertently in
C.R.P.1472/2017 pageno.2of3
•> therelinquishmentdeed dated26.07.2012are ofno relevance."
Without any observations on the merits or demerits of the case, it having been observed thatin the said para 5-6 ofthe written statement ofthe defendant nos. 1 & 2,they have reiterated specifically to the effect qua the registration ofthe Will dated 26.07.2012in favour ofthe defendantNos.1,2, 5,6&7executed by Smt.Gomti Devi which is stated to be registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, taking the same into account despite submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that in the relinquishment deed which is also based on the forged will,the name ofthe petitioner is not mentioned in the same as being a legal heir of Smt. Gomti Devi, the mother of the petitioner and also the mother ofthe defendant nos.l & 2 inasmuch as the aspect ofcreating a forged Will or otherwise is yet to be adjudicated, it has thus rightly been observed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned
' order that there are no unequivocal admissions made on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 &2which can assistthe petitioner i.e.the plaintifffor grant ofa decree under Order 12 Rule 6 ofthe CPC.
The petition C.R.P. 1472/2017 isthus declined.
. Nothing stated hereinabove shall however amountto an expression on
- the merits ofthe case. f/ Copy ofthis order be sentto the learned trial Court.
ANU MALHOTRA,J JULY 26,2018 vm . C.R.P. 1472/2017 pageno.3.of3
•> therelinquishmentdeed dated26.07.2012are ofno relevance."
Without any observations on the merits or demerits of the case, it having been observed thatin the said para 5-6 ofthe written statement ofthe defendant nos. 1 & 2,they have reiterated specifically to the effect qua the registration ofthe Will dated 26.07.2012in favour ofthe defendantNos.1,2, 5,6&7executed by Smt.Gomti Devi which is stated to be registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, taking the same into account despite submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that in the relinquishment deed which is also based on the forged will,the name ofthe petitioner is not mentioned in the same as being a legal heir of Smt. Gomti Devi, the mother of the petitioner and also the mother ofthe defendant nos.l & 2 inasmuch as the aspect ofcreating a forged Will or otherwise is yet to be adjudicated, it has thus rightly been observed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned
' order that there are no unequivocal admissions made on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 &2which can assistthe petitioner i.e.the plaintifffor grant ofa decree under Order 12 Rule 6 ofthe CPC.
The petition C.R.P. 1472/2017 isthus declined.
. Nothing stated hereinabove shall however amountto an expression on
- the merits ofthe case. f/ Copy ofthis order be sentto the learned trial Court.
ANU MALHOTRA,J JULY 26,2018 vm . C.R.P. 1472/2017 pageno.3.of3
JUDGMENT