Failure to communicate with the relevant authority regarding an allotment can lead to the denial of a mandatory injunction.

1. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated September 05, 2016. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Regular Civil Appeal of the appellant concurring with the finding of the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing DDA to allot a flat to him which was booked by his father under NPRS Scheme, 1979.

2. The facts are not in dispute.

3. Sh.Sharwan Kumar Sahni, father of the appellant applied for a Janta flat of DDA under the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS) vide registration Slip No. 10289 dated April 28, 1980. Sh.Sharwan Kumar Sahni expired on April 07, 1991 and during his lifetime no allotment was made by DDA. Sh.Sharwan Kumar Sahni was survived by his widow and children details of which is as under:

(i) Smt.Kewal Kumari - Wife.

(ii) Sh.Yogesh Kumar Sahni - Son

(iii) Sh.Rajesh Kumar - Son

(iv) Smt.Anju Kohli - Daughter

(v) Smt.Versha Sethi - Daughter

4. The mother of the appellant expired on January 25, 2012. It is admitted case of the appellant that during the lifetime of his father and mother, no communication was made to DDA in respect of allotment of Janta Flat having registration Slip No.10289 dated April 28, 1980. Even the factum of death of Sh.Sharwan Kumar Sahni or any change of address was not informed to DDA. The averments made by the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint is that in the year 2012 his brother Yogesh Kumar Sahni came across the registration documents and started communication with the DDA but without any positive response. Thereafter the appellant alone filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the DDA to allot a flat to him for which his other siblings have ‘no objection’. However, the impugned judgments do not refer to any such ‘no objection’ given by other legal heirs of Late Sh.Sharwan Kumar Sahni. None of them was examined as witness by the appellant/plaintiff in Civil Suit No.306/13. Even Sh.Yogesh Kumar, who is stated to have traced out the registration papers in the year 2012, was not examined.

5. The plea taken by the DDA in the written statement (in para 2) is to the following effect:-

‘That it is submitted that as per the available record (computerized Housing Management Information System), it is found that Shri Sarwan Kumar Sahni S/o Shri Ram Lal Sahni r/o C-129, Hari Nagar Clock Tower, Delhi 110064 was a registrant under the NPRS 1979 for allotment of a Janta flat, and as per his priority, he was allotted Janta flat number 59-D, ground floor, pocket SA B-7, Kondli, Gharoli, Delhi on 28.12.1992. The allotment made was subject to the terms and conditions as given in DAL, Brochure and also the DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968. Demand letter dated 22.02.1993 was sent to the allottee, and the total amount payable towards the said allotment was Rs. 1,15,312.58. However, the allottee failed to deposit the demanded amount, and the allotment in favour of the allottee hence was cancelled on account of non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the demand cum allotment letter. Thereafter, the allotment under the NPRS 1979 was closed after giving wide publicity in all the leading newspapers for the information of the public. It is submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to any allotment against the above mentioned cancelled allotment, and is at the most entitled to refund of the registration amount subject to submission of the original documents and the fulfilling of the relevant requirements with the defendants.’

6. The issues settled by learned Trial Court read as under:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Mandatory injunction? OPP

2. Whether Suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD

3. Relief.”

7. After considering the testimony of the plaintiff who examined himself as PW-1 and Sh.Brijesh Chander examined by DDA as DW-1, learned Trial Court held that the suit is not barred by time bu