Back
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Manjeet Kaur & Others
Versus
Sukhdev Singh & Others
CS (OS) Nos. 1228, 1230, 1420, 1421, 1433, 1434 of 2008 & IA Nos. 7555, 7557, 8730, 8731, 8746, 8747 of 2008, 2376, 2378, 2377, 2474, 2473, 2472 of 2009 & 9886, 9893, 9887, 9907, 9914 of 2010
Decided On : 08-11-2013
Court Fee - Property Valuation - Res Judicata - [CS (OS) No.1228 of 2008] - [Court Fees Act, 1850, Hindu Succession Act, 1956] - The court considered the proper valuation of the suit for court fees, the question of res judicata, and the legal basis for the claim that relinquishment deeds ensured the benefit of all legal heirs. The court found that the plaint was not properly valued for court fees and jurisdiction, and that the suits were barred on the principle of res judicata. The court also noted that the relief sought in the suits would mean that the relinquishment deeds would cease to have any effect, which lacked a legal basis. Consequently, the applications under Order VII Rule 11 were allowed, and the plaints in all these suits were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the suits and vacation of all interim orders.
Fact of the Case:
The suits involved declarations in respect of deeds of relinquishment executed by the defendants in favor of another defendant in respect of three properties. The court addressed the proper valuation of the suit for court fees, the question of res judicata, and the legal basis for the claim that relinquishment deeds ensured the benefit of all legal heirs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaint was not properly valued for court fees and jurisdiction, and that the suits were barred on the principle of res judicata. The relief sought in the suits lacked a legal basis, and the court rejected the plaints, leading to the dismissal of the suits and vacation of all interim orders.
Issues: Proper valuation of the suit for court fees, question of res judicata, and the legal basis for the claim that relinquishment deeds ensured the benefit of all legal heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The suits were rejected as the plaints were not properly valued for court fees and jurisdiction, and the suits were barred on the principle of res judicata. The relief sought in the suits lacked a legal basis, leading to the dismissal of the suits and vacation of all interim orders.
Final Decision: The applications under Order VII Rule 11 were allowed, and the plaints in all these suits were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the suits and vacation of all interim orders.
1. These six suits arise out of a similar set of facts. The facts in the lead suit i.e. CS (OS) No.1228 of 2008 are, therefore, discussed in some detail. It may be mentioned that the Plaintiffs in all these suits are the same. Plaintiff No.1 is Smt. Manjeet Kaur who expired during the pendency of the suit on 18th April 2010 and is represented by her legal representatives (‘LRs’). The applications for bringing on record the LRs of Plaintiff No.1 were allowed by the Court on 16th May 2013. Plaintiff No.2 is Smt. Surinder Kaur Srichawla. She is the divorced wife of Shri Ongkar Singh, the brother of Smt. Manjeet Kaur. Both Plaintiff No.1 Smt. Manjeet Kaur and late Shri Ongkar Singh, along with 9 other siblings were the children of late Shri Seth Narain Singh Chawla (father) and late Smt. Harjinder Kaur (mother). Plaintiff No.3 is Shri Amornthep Srichawla and Plaintiffs 4 and 5 are Ms. Orasa Srichawla and Ms. Orapin Srichawla. Plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 are the children of late Shri Ongkar Singh and Plaintiff No.2 Smt. Surinder Kaur Srichawla.
2. Defendant No.1 in Suit CS (OS) No. 1228 of 2008 is Shri Sukhdev Singh, one of the sons of late Shri Nirankar Singh Chawla and Smt. Harjinder Kaur. Defendant No.2 is Shri Purshotam Singh Chawla who is the son of late Shri Seth Narain Singh Chawla and late Smt. Harjinder Kaur. The prayers in all these suits are for declarations in respect of deeds of relinquishment dated 31st May 2005 executed by Defendant No.1 and his brother Shri Manjit Singh in favour of Defendant No.2 Shri Purshotam Singh Chawla in respect of the following three properties:
(i) Property No.28, Pusa Road (Ajmal Khan Road), New Delhi.
(ii) Property No.2104, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(iii) Property No.6/44, WEA Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
3. The points that arise for consideration in the suits have been summarised in an order dated 8th February 2010 passed by the Court which reads as under:
1. These batch of matters are seeking a declaration in respect of property bearing No.28, Pusa Road (Ajmal Khan Road), New Delhi, property bearing no.2104, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and property no.6/44, W.E.A., Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. There are five plaintiffs in the suits. The plaintiff No.1 is Manjeet Kaur and the plaintiff No.2 to 5 are Sh. Surinder Kaur Srichawla, Mr. Amornthep Srichawla, Ms. Orasa Srichawla and Ms. Orapin Srichawla.
2. The plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are stated to be the legal heirs of one Late Sh. Onkar Singh who was one of the sons of the deceased Narain Singh who was survived by the widow, eight sons and three daughters.
3. The suit is for seeking a declaration of cancellation of relinquishment deed/release deed dated 31.5.2005 purported to have been executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and in other suits right of preemption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been claimed.
4. This court is taking the suit No.1228/2008 as a sample and lead case to pass the order. The plaint is not signed or supported by the affidavit of plaintiff no.1 Smt. Manjeet Kaur. So far as the plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 5 are concerned, they are purported to have filed the suit through plaintiff no.4 Ms. Orasa Srichawla in the capacity of attorney. However, a perusal of the power of attorney shows that prima facie the said power of attorney purported to have been executed by Plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 5 does not authorize the plaintiff no.4 to file the above mentioned suit on their behalf. It only authorises the plaintiff no.4 to protect the interest of the said plaintiff to the extent of their share in respect of the suit properties. Therefore, in my view prima facie the plaint is not validly instituted, so far as the plaintiff nos.1 to 3 and 5 are concerned.
5. The learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff seeks some time to satisfy this Court regarding the maintainability of the suit to that extent.
6. It is further seen that the plaintiffs in
AI
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
