Important Point – For declaratory suit valuation for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction has to be the same.

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit (i) for declaration that the Gift Deed dated August, 2015 executed by defendants No.1&2 namely Sh. Prem Parkash Khanna and Smt. Krishna Kumari Khanna wife of Sh. Prem Parkash Khanna in favour of the defendant No.3 Smt. Anu Narula qua property No.M-174, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi is bad, illegal, void and non-enforceable document; (ii) for mandatory injunction to the Sub Registrar of Assurances with whom the Gift Deed aforesaid is registered to cancel the registration thereof; (iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.3 from claiming herself to be the owner of the property on the basis of Gift Deed and from dealing with the property; and, (iv) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.3 to deposit the Gift Deed in this Court.

2. The suit came up before this Court first on 25th July, 2016 when queries were raised from the counsel for the plaintiff as to the very maintainability of the suit and as to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. On request of the counsel for the plaintiff, the order on maintainability of the suit was deferred. On 11th August, 2016, after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff further, orders on maintainability of this suit and valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction were reserved.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff:

(a) that the plaintiff is the son of defendants No.1&2 and the defendant No.3 is the sister of the plaintiff;

(b) that the plaintiff sent his earnings from Canada to the defendants No.1&2 in India for purchase of a plot of land and for raising construction thereon;

(c) that with the said monies, plot No.M-174, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi admeasuring 300 sq. yards was purchased and construction raised thereon;

(d) however, on account of relationship, the said property was registered in the name of defendants No.1&2;

(e) that the property however is not the absolute property of the defendants No.1&2, as the same has been purchased with the contribution made by the plaintiff only and neither the defendants No.1&2 nor any other brother or sister of the plaintiff had contributed a single penny for purchase of the plot of land or for raising construction thereon;

(f) however the defendants no.1&2 in lieu of having put their labour in looking after construction of the property have half share in the property;

(g) that the attitude of the defendants No.1&2 towards the plaintiff during the visit of the plaintiff from Canada to India in the year 2001 was very rude and the plaintiff was not even allowed to reside in the property; the same conduct was repeated during the visit of the plaintiff and his wife in the year 2005;

(h) that the plaintiff in or about the year 2005 instituted a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants No.1&2 from dealing with the property and for mandatory injunction to provide proper accommodation to the plaintiff and his wife and children in the said property during their stay in India “as the suit property is a joint property of the plaintiff” and the defendants no.1&2.

(i) that the defendants No.1&2 on being served with the summons of the suit applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint and the learned Civil Judge before whom the suit aforesaid was pending, vide order dated 27th April, 2005 rejected the plaint;

(j) that the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the Court of the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of rejection of the plaint and restored the suit to be tried and decided on merits;

(k) that the defendants No.1&2 preferred a second appeal being RSA No.103/2010 to this Court but which appeal was withdrawn on 12th December, 2013;

(l) that the suit aforesaid filed by the plaintiff is still pending consideration;

(m) that the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint in the af