2018 Supreme(Del) 2758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
J. CHAWLA - Appellant
Versus
VERN KUMAR DATT AND ORS - Respondents
RFA No. 949 of 2016
Decided on : 12-10-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Shrey Chathly, Ms. Bandana Kaur Grover and Muhammad Parbhesh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the restrictions placed on the transfer of common ownership rights through the MOU were valid and did not violate the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.
Headnote:
Transfer of Property Act - Interpretation of Memorandum of Understanding - Sections 10 and 11 - [PROPERTY OWNERSHIP] - [Transfer of Property Act] - [Sections 10, 11] - The court discussed the interpretation of Clauses 1, 2, and 11 of the MOU dated 31.10.2001 in relation to the rights of the co-owners and the transfer of common portions. The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act and their applicability to the case. It concluded that the MOU did not violate the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and upheld the restrictions placed on the transfer of common ownership rights.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership and usage rights of different portions of a property as per a registered Will and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the co-owners. The defendant no. 3 challenged the trial court's decree for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and defendant no. 1, which restrained defendant no. 3 from claiming ownership or using the common portion of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MOU dated 31.10.2001, which restricted the transfer of common ownership rights, was valid and did not violate the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. It also dismissed the appellant/defendant no. 3's argument that access to the common portion was necessary for enjoying the exclusive ownership of the blue portion.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the MOU clauses in relation to the rights of the co-owners and the transfer of common portions. Additionally, the court addressed the argument regarding the necessity of access to the common portion for enjoying the exclusive ownership of the blue portion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MOU did not violate the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and upheld the restrictions placed on the transfer of common ownership rights. It also rejected the argument that access to the common portion was necessary for enjoying the exclusive ownership of the blue portion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decree for declaration and injunction, thereby affirming the rights and restrictions established by the MOU.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
RFA No. 949/2016 and C.M. Appl. No. 45145/2016 (for stay)
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no. 3 in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.07.2016 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for declaration and injunction filed by plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and has restrained defendant no.3, being the exclusive owner of one portion of the property bearing no. 11-B, Rajendra Park, New Delhi, (hereinafter 'suit property') from, in any manner, being entitled to claim ownership or use of the other separate common portion found not to be in the exclusive ownership or entitlement of the appellant/defendant no. 3 shown in yellow colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/1. Further, the appellant was also restrained from using the front gate of the property.
2. The facts of the case are in a narrow compass. The original owner of the suit property was Smt. Kaushalya Rani, who was the mother of the respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and respondent no. 3/defendant no. 1. On the death of the mother, Smt. Kaushalya Rani, the ownership of the suit property, in terms of her registered Will dated 07.02.1983 vested with respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and defendant no. 1/respondent no. 3, whereby, the exclusive ownership was given to each son of certain portions of the property and common ownership rights in certain other areas of the driveway, gate and staircase were given to all the three brothers. A site plan was attached to the Will of Smt. Kaushalya Rani and as per this site plan, the red/pink-coloured portion exclusively vested with respondent no. 1/ plaintiff no. 1/Sh. Vern Kumar Datt, the portion marked in green exclusively vested with the respondent no. 2/plaintiff no. 2/Sh. Ashwani Kumar Datt, and the portion shown in blue exclusively vested with respondent no. 3/defendant no. 1/Sh. Aditya Datt. Therefore, all three brothers were given exclusive ownership rights with respect to separate portions, on each floor of the property which were marked in pink, green and blue respectively in the site plan attached to the Will. In this very site plan, certain portions of the suit property were shown as being the common portion and this common portion was depicted in yellow colour in the site plan. It essentially comprises of the drive way on the ground floor, the front entrance gate therein and the staircase leading to the upper floors of the property. It may be noted that all three brothers, as already stated above, were given exclusive ownership of a certain portion on each floor of the property being the ground floor, first floor and second floor.
3. The three sons of Smt. Kaushalya Rani, being the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant no. 1 in the suit, thereafter, admittedly entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter 'MOU') on 31.10.2001 whereby the three brothers agreed to a particular form of ownership and enjoyment of the common portion marked in yellow in the site plan attached to the Will. The relevant paragraphs of the MOU dated 31.10.2001, are paragraphs 1, 2 and 11, and this Court is concerned with the interpretation of the said paragraphs. The issue is that whether under the terms of the MOU, especially paras 1, 2 and 11 thereof, the rights of respondent no. 3/defendant no. 1/Sh. Aditya Datt (the exclusive owner of the blue portion in the site plan attached to the Will, adjacent to the rear lane at the back of the property), in the common portion got extinguished in any manner as such rights once being divested from respondent no. 3/defendant no. 1, cannot be thus available to the transferee. The narration of facts of the Memorandum of Understanding with Clauses 1, 2 and 11 read as under:-
“MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding on this 31 day of October, 2001 between Vern Kumar Datt, Ashwani Kumar Datt and Aditya Kumar Datt, all the three sons of Sh. R.