Back
High Court Of Delhi
VIDHI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
BALJIT KAUR - Respondent
First Appeal (OS) 42 of 2001
Decided On : 03/30/2001
Impleadment - Property Dispute - Hindu Succession Act - Section 14 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought impleadment as a defendant in a suit for partition of property filed by the respondent. The suit was based on the Hindu Succession Act, alleging that the property devolved upon the son and daughters of the deceased. An ex parte order of injunction was passed, restraining the defendants from dealing with the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation and deserved to be added as a party to the suit. The court also allowed the appellant's application seeking vacation of the ex parte order of injunction with respect to the portion of the property falling to the appellant's share.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be impleaded as a party to the suit and whether the ex parte order of injunction should be vacated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, emphasizing that a person may be added as a party if they have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The court also considered the implications of the collaboration agreement and the appellant's investment in the property.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appellant's impleadment as defendant No. 3 in the suit and ordered the vacation of the ex parte order of injunction with respect to the portion of the property falling to the appellant's share.
( 1 ) THE appellant feeling aggrieved against dismissal of its application (IA. 10720/2000) whereby it sought impleadment as a defendant in a suit; has preferred this appeal against the order passed by learned Single Judge oh; 18/12/2000. Appellant has also felt aggrieved by non- consideration of the prayer for vacation of ex- parte injunction made in IA. 10721/2000 and has consequently prayed for vacation of ad-interim order of injunction dated 28/9/2000 passed in i A,10043/2000.
( 2 ) FACTS as are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeal in brief are that on 26/9/2000 Suit No. 2205/2000 was filed by respondent Baljlt Kaur against Ajit Singh and harish Kaur (the other two respondents in this appeal ). In the said suit, plaintiff Baljit Kaur claimed a preliminary decree for partition of property, namely ,house No. D6/4, Vasant Vihar, New delhi by declaring respective shares of the parties In the said property and on determination of shares to pass a final decree as - regards her 1/3rd share. The suit was filed, inter alia, alleging that late S. Joginder Singh, the father of the? parties was the sole owner of the suit property standing on land admeasuring 400 sq. yards, it was single storey residential building and was self acquired property of s. Joginder Singh, who passed away on 8. 6. 1987 leaving behind Smt. Harjit Kaur (widow) Ajit Singh (son) and Baljit Kaur and Harish Kaur (daughters ). During his life time, S. Joginder Singh had execut- ed a registered will whereby he gave life estate in the suit property to his wife Smt. Harjit Kaur in lieu of her existing right of maintenance and residence. The will stipulates that after her demise, the property shall vest absolutely in favour of his son Ajit Singh. It is alleged that smt. Harjit Kaur passed away on 24/8/1994. There- fore as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinaf- ter referred to as "the Act"), Smt. Harjit Kaur became full and absolute owner and on her demise, the suit property devolved upon the son and the two daughters of S. Joginder Singh. the plaintiff alleged that she was married and was residing in her matrimonial home at Chandigarh but continued to occupy a part of the property owned by S. Jo- gijnder Singh. On 5/9/2000 when she along with her family members came to Delhi and went to the suit premises she found that Ajit Singh had shifted from the suit premises to another premises and also learnt that he had entered into. an agreement with some contractors/builders in respect of the suit property. The single storeyed house had been demolished to be rebuilt. Faced with this situation she contacted Ajit Singh at his new address and protested about demolition of the property. Ajit Singh refused to accept the plain- tiff to be a co-owner. Thereafter she learnt that a fraud has been played by Ajit Singh by getting the property mutated in his exclusive name. It is further alleged that on the basis of the will dated 14. 6. 1983 full rights of ownership could not be conferred on AJit Singh alone. Irrespective of the mutation property was jointly owned by AJit singh, Baljit Kaur and Harish Kaur Ajit Singh had only one third share in the suit property and he alone could not have entered into collaboration agreement or any other agreement with a third party in respect of the suit property, nor could he could demolish or re-build the same to the detriment of her rights. With malafide intention ajit Singh was attempting to usury the entire property including her share.
( 3 ) ON the basis of the aforementioned allegations made in the plaint decree has been prayed for partition of property. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. An ex parte order of injunction was passed by learned single Judge on 28/9/2000 restraining the two defendants (respondents 2 and 3 ). from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering or creating third
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
