Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG AND MUKTA GUPTA. JJ,
SURINDER KAUR – Appellant
Versus
RAM NARULA & ORS. – Respondents
RFA(OS) 7/2014
Decided On : 04.01.2016
Ms.Richa Kapoor, Mr.Rohit Kaul and Mr.Ashish Negi, Advocates.
Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Mr.Deepak Khadaria, Advocate for R-3. Mr.Alok Kr.Aggarwal and Mr.Gaurav Tanwar, Advocates for R-20. Mr.Pradeep Bakshi and Mr.Puneet Khurana, Advocates for R-41.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 2 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 11 - Appointment of local commissioner - Advocate in the same case - Legality of - Suit was filed by Smt. Surinder Kaur through Ms. Geetanali Chauhan and Ms. Richa Kapoor - Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner in the probate case - After executing a vakalatnama for a party, it was improper on the part of the counsel to accept a Local Commission in another matter, that is, the probate petition filed by the same party.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 31, 34 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 2 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 11 - Sale deeds - Cancellation - Scope of - Plaintiff had not claimed the relief of cancellation of sale deeds - Declaration and Partition was sought simplisitor - Appellant not being the party to the sale deeds was thus not required to seek cancellation of the sale deeds - Single Judge erred in rejecting the plaint and being contrary to Section 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act - Impugned judgment is set aside - Application of BMRC is dismissed - Suit is restored to its original position.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The suit was filed by Surinder Kaur seeking declaration, partition, injunction, and accounts regarding the estate of her mother, Jasbir Kaur, with allegations of fraudulent transfers and mutations of properties (!) (!) .
-
The properties in question include immovable assets located in Delhi and agricultural land in Sirsa, as well as movable assets like bank deposits and locker contents (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The plaintiff contended that the succession and transfer of properties were manipulated fraudulently, with mutations being canceled and later re-affected through fraudulent deeds and transfers by the defendant Ram Narula and others (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The suit also involved allegations that the defendant Ram Narula and other purchasers engaged in multiple sale transactions, some of which were alleged to be fraudulent or without proper authority, thereby affecting the rightful inheritance of the plaintiffs (!) - (!) .
-
The defendants filed written statements, and some also filed applications under Order I Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC, with one application challenging the maintainability of the suit based on the absence of a claim for cancellation of sale deeds and limitations (!) (!) (!) .
-
The defendant BMRC filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was allowed, leading to the rejection of the suit on the grounds that it was barred by provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the Limitation Act, based on the original framing of the suit as a simple declaration and partition (!) (!) .
-
The plaintiff amended the plaint to include an assertion that the discovery of fraud and acts of transfer could only be made in mid-2008, thus claiming that the suit was within the permissible time frame under the Limitation Act, extending the period due to the discovery of fraud (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the amendment was substantial and that the suit should be read as filed within the limitation period, considering the discovery of fraud in 2008 (!) (!) .
-
The legal position clarified that a suit for establishing title need not necessarily include a prayer for cancellation of deeds if the plaintiff is not a party to those deeds, and that such suits can be based on declarations of invalidity without seeking cancellation (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the suit was improperly dismissed solely on the grounds of limitations and the absence of a prayer for cancellation, and it was appropriate to restore the suit to its original position for trial on merits (!) .
-
An issue was raised regarding the propriety of a counsel accepting a local commission in a matter where they had already executed vakalatnama for the same party, which was considered improper (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. The appellant Surinder Kaur filed a suit being CS(OS) 651/2009 for declaration, partition, injunction, rendition of accounts in respect of the estate of late Smt.Jasbir Kaur. Mrs.Jasbir Kaur died leaving behind one son Jai Singh defendant No.2 and six daughters including the plaintiff Surinder Kaur. The other 5 daughters Sukhvinder Pal Kaur, Simrat Kaur, Rajinder Pal Kaur and Harsharon Kaur were impleaded as D-3, D-4, D-5 and D-6.
The sixth daughter Smt.Avninder Kaur has since passed away, thus her legal heirs were impleaded as defendant No.7 to 17. Son of defendant No.2 i.e. Ram Narula was also impleaded as defendant No.1. Surinder Kaur claimed that Ajit Singh her father died in the year 1975 leaving behind assets, immovable and movable properties. Vide his Will he bequeathed half of his estate to defendant No.2 his son and other half to Smt.Jasbir Kaur his wife with the declared understanding that Jasbir Kaur would make a bequest in favour of her six daughters. Thus, Jai Singh who was living in Bangkok got properties and assets located at Bangkok whereas Smt.Jasbir Kaur who was living in Delhi got immovable properties at Delhi besides agriculture land in village Amritsar, District Sirsa etc. Smt.Jasbir Kaur made a Will dated November 03, 1989 bequeathing her estate to her six daughters and her son in following manner:
“Immovable properties
a) My one-half share in 15A/2, 3 and 4, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi to my aforesaid son and daughters in equal proportion, i.e. one seventh share each.
b) My one-fourth share in 10197, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, to my aforesaid six daughters in equal proportion, i.e. one-sixth share each.
c) My one-fourth share in 12A/1, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to my aforesaid six daughters in equal proportion, i.e. one-sixth share each. d) My agricultural land in village Amritsar, District Sirsa (Haryana) to my said six daughters in equal proportion, i.e. one-sixth share each.
Moveable properties.
All my under-mentioned moveable properties to my said son and six daughters in equal proportion, i.e. one-seventh share each.
a) amount lying in S.B.A/c No.453 as well as Fixed Deposits with Bank of Baroda, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
b) Amount lying in S.B.A/c No.436 as well as fixed deposits with oriental Bank of Commerce, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
c) Contents of Locker No.50 with Bank of Baroda, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
d) Contents of Locker No.171 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.”
2. After demise of Smt.Jasbir Kaur, Jai Singh defendant No.2 disclaimed succession for himself in the estate of Jasbir Kaur for the reason he had already been given the Lion’s share and with the assurance that the estate of Jasbir Kaur would come to the six sisters. Jai Singh assured that since some immovable properties were jointly with the son of Shri Mohar Singh, the brother of Shri Ajit Singh Narula, he would ensure that they are disposed of and the share given to the sisters. Since no action was taken by Jai Singh despite passage of time, the daughters of Jasbir Kaur became suspicious. When Surinder Kaur and her sisters checked they found that Jai Singh had got mutated the name of his son Ram Narula defendant No.1 in place of Smt.Jagir Kaur in the municipal records in respect of immovable properties at Delhi. On the complaints made Shri Rajveer Singh Dahiya, Assistant Collector vide order dated August 03, 2001 withdrew/ cancelled mutation dated June 11, 1998 in respect of property No.15A/2, 3, 4 and 12A/1 WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi and property No.10197 Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh.
3. Plaintiff along with her sisters defendant No.2 and 4 preferred probate petition No.206/2001 in the Court of District Judge, Delhi impleading defendant No.2 and other sisters Rajinder Pal Kaur, Smt.Harsharon Kaur as defendant No.5 and 6 and the legal heirs of Smt.Arvinder Kaur i.e. defendant No.7 to 17. Jai Singh appeared in the probate petition and filed the preliminary objection stating t
