A release deed executed as part of an overall settlement of disputes, without any fraud or pressure, is not void or voidable, and does not require the prior permission of the paramount lessor if it does not amount to a sale, transfer, or assignment of the property.

( 1 ) KASTURI Lal Jain-plaintiff filed this suit alleging that plot No. A-82, measuring 412. 50 sq. yards situated in the area of Village Malikpur Chhaoni, Zone C-18, in the layout plan of Part-1 of Gujranwala Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. , Delhi is on lease with him and the defendants under the sub-lease of the Society registered at serial No. 890 in Additional Book No. 1 Volume No. 2948 on pages 94110 dated March 2,1973, with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. Plaintiff and the defendants were having disputes in regard to rendition of accounts of a number of partnership firms including M/s. Rolex Metal Industries (India ). Under threat, criminal intimadation and pressure exerted by the defendants, plaintiff executed general power of attorney dated September 21,1981 in favour of defendant No. 1, release deed dated September 19, 1981 and affidavit dated September 21, 1981 so that the partition of immovable properties and disputes in regard to rendition of accounts etc. could be decided simultaneously. It is alleged that plaintiff never intended to forgo title in aforesaid plot No. A-82, Gujranwala Town. Aforesaid genaral power of attorney, affidavit and the release deed thus being void or voidable are liable to be cancelled. It is further alleged that the aforesaid release deed amounts to transferring of the aforementioned plot and as envisaged by the terms and conditions of the perpetual sub-lease deed it could not have been executed by the plaintiff without the permission of the Lt. Governor, lessor. It was prayed that the aforesaid release deed dated September 19, 1981, power of attorney dated September 21, 1981 and the affidavit dated September 21, 1981, be cancelled and delivered back to the plaintiff under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 2 to 4 have contested the suit by filing a joint written statement while defendant No. 1 has filed separate written statement.

( 3 ) IN his written statement defendant No. 1 by way of preliminary objection has pleaded that the suit is essentially a suit for cancellation of documents pertaining to immovable property and as such Court fee is payable on the market value of the plot, suit has, therefore, not been correctly valued for the purpose of payment of Court fee. On merits, it is alleged that by a registered lease deed executed on February 4,1970, the President of India demised to Gujranwala House Building Society Ltd. , Delhi, residential plots falling in the layout plan of the Society. Out of those plots a sub-lease regarding plot No. A-o2 was executed in the name of defendant No. 1 and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, on June 27, 1970. Later on defendant No. 1 of his free Will and without receiving any consideration got the sub-lease changed in the name of his brothers i. e. plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5. On this change another perpetual sub-lease was executed between the President, Gujranwala House Building Society Ltd. and plaintiff and defendants 2 to5 as sub-lessees on February 12,1973 which was duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is admitted that family disputes did exist between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 but not with defendant No. 1. However, these family disputes were settled and accounts were cleared. Suit filed by the plaintiff regarding M/s. Rolex Metal Industries, Bombay, has since been withdrawn by him. It is alleged that the release deed dated September 19,1981, power of attorney dated September 21, 1981 and the affidavit dated September 21, 1981 were executed and signed by the plaintiff of his own free will with a view to settle the family disputes. It is emphatically denied that any fraud was played or pressure exerted on the plaintiff in regard to the execution of the aforesaid documents or that they are void or voidable, as alleged. It is empharicaly denied that any permission from the Lt. Governor was needed for execution of the release deed dated September 19, 1981.