BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

.1. In this application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), the defendant No.1 has prayed for the rejection of the plaint on three counts:-

.(1) Limitation ;

.(2) The plaint does not disclose any cause of action ; and

.(3) The suit is vexatious and frivolous.

.1. The main prayer in the suit is for declaring the compromise decree dated 30.01.1987 passed by this court in Suit No.1970/1986

.MKR and that the defendant No.1 was not the wife of MKR. Interestingly, a declaration is also sought that the decree dated 18.12.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dissolving the marriage between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 is null and void. Several other prayers have also been made, but these are the main prayers.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the son born out of the alleged wedlock of his mother and MKR. As such, being a co-parcener, he is entitled to his share in the property bearing No.A-16, Niti Bagh, New Delhi. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time when the compromise decree dated 30.01.1987 was passed, the plaintiff was a minor and as his interest was not placed before the court, the said decree is liable to be declared as null and void, inter alia, in view of the provisions of Order 32 Rule 7 CPC.

.3. It is contended on behalf of the defendant No.1 / applicant that the plaintiff is not the legitimate son of MKR inasmuch as there was no marriage, what to speak of a legal marriage, between the plaintiff’s mother and MKR. It was submitted that the plaintiff’s mother had filed a suit bearing No 472/1986 in the District Court

.the plaintiff’s mother again before the District Court at Delhi, inter alia, seeking a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of MKR. Later, in the same year, MKR filed Suit No.1970/1986 in this court seeking an injunction against the plaintiff’s mother from interfering with his rights to enjoy the property bearing No.A-16, Niti Bagh, New Delhi.

.4. It is further contended that a compromise had been arrived at and the same had been recorded in MKR’s suit bearing No.1970/1986. By virtue of the compromise, MKR was regarded as the absolute owner of the said property bearing No.A-16, Niti Bagh, New Delhi. The terms of the settlement as recorded in the compromise decree were, inter alia, that the plaintiff’s mother would be entitled to occupy and use the ground floor of the said premises during the lifetime of MKR, but she would have no access to the first floor. After the lifetime of MKR, the ground floor would be occupied and used by Mr Vivek Ramamurthi (son of MKR through his earlier marriage with Smt Susan) and the present plaintiff. The first floor would then fall in the share of the defendant No.1 and her daughter. It was specifically indicated in the compromise that the plaintiff’s mother gives up all her contentions raised by her in her two suits namely Suit No 472/1986

.Nos.472/1986 and 599/1986 were withdrawn by the High Court from the District Court and in terms of the compromise arrived at between the plaintiff’s mother and MKR and defendant No.1, the same were dismissed. The plaintiff, by the present suit, is seeking a declaration from this court to declare that compromise decree dated 30.01.1987 as null and void.

5. On the point of limitation, it has been contended on behalf of the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff, as per the averments made in the plaint, was born on 27.05.1970. This means that he attained majority on 27.05.1988. It was submitted in the backdrop of Articles 59 and 60 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 that a minor could bring an action within three years of attaining majority. The three years would have to be counted from 27.05.1988. The three years would elapse on 27.05.1991. The present suit has been filed in 1994 and, therefore, the same is barred by time and consequently the plaint is liable to be rejected in view of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document