Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL, J.
RAVI KUMAR BAJAJ – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Bajaj & Ors - Respondents
CM(M) 537/2019 & CM No. 29207/2019 (for placing on record additional documents), CM No. 8201/2020 (for permission to file documents), CM No. 8203/2020 (for condonation of delay of 7 days in refiling), CM No. 3863/2021(for evidence), CM No. 36780/2021(for permission to file documents), CM No. 38461/2021(for rectification of order dated 20.09.2021), CM No. 38511/2021(for dismissal in limine), CM No. 38513/2021(for condonation of delay of 97 days in refiling two accompanying CMs), CM No. 364/2022 (for rectification/modification of order dated 15.11.2021by R-3), CM(M) 1168/2021 & CM No. 45595/2021(for condonation of delay in filing), CM No. 45596/2021(for stay)
Decided on : 07-02-2022
Conversion of Property - Civil Procedure Code - Section 151, Order VII Rule 11 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought conversion of a property from leasehold to freehold, which was jointly owned with the defendants. The defendants opposed the conversion, leading to a legal dispute. The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's application under Section 151 of the CPC and the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The plaintiff also filed a review application, which was dismissed. The matter was taken up together with another petition arising from the same suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff's interest in converting the property from leasehold to freehold was intertwined with that of the defendants. The Court noted that the defendants' refusal to cooperate prejudiced the rights of the co-owners and posed a risk of lease forfeiture due to non-payment of ground rent. The Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the conversion and mutation of the property from leasehold to freehold.
Issues: The main issues were the opposition to the conversion of the property by the defendants, the dismissal of the applications under Section 151 and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and the subsequent review application.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiff's right to convert the property from leasehold to freehold was a continuing cause of action and not barred by limitation. The Court also emphasized the intertwined interests of the co-owners and the need to minimize litigation. It decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the conversion and mutation of the property from leasehold to freehold.
Final Decision: The Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the conversion and mutation of the property from leasehold to freehold. It also issued directions for the plaintiff to pay the applicable charges and appointed a Local Commissioner to carry out the necessary formalities in consultation with the defendants.
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
CM No. 45595/2021(for condonation of delay in filing) in CM(M)1168/2021
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
CM No. 45596/2021(for stay) in CM(M)1168/2021
2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking (i) stay of the proceedings in CM(M) 537/2019; and (ii) that the petition being CM(M) 1168/2021 be heard and decided first.
3. Since both the aforesaid petitions, CM(M) 1168/2021 and CM(M) 537/2019 are being heard and decided together, the present application has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.
CM No. 8203/2020 (for condonation of delay of 7 days in refiling) in CM(M) 537/2019
4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
CM No. 29207/2019 (for placing on record additional documents), CM No. 8201/2020 (for permission to file documents) & CM No. 36780/2021(of R-3 for permission to file documents) in CM(M) 537/2019
5. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed.
CM No. 3863/2021(for evidence) in CM(M) 537/2019
6. This application has been filed for taking evidence to be incorporated at the stage of oral arguments.
7. There is no basis for the reliefs claimed in the present application for taking such evidence in petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
CM No. 38461/2021(for rectification of order dated 20.09.2021) in CM(M) 537/2019
9. The present application has been filed by the applicant/respondent no.3 seeking rectification of the order dated 20th September, 2021 passed by this Court.
10. For the reasons stated in the present application, the application is partly allowed in respect of the modifications sought in paragraphs 7(b) and 7(c) of the present application.
11. By the said order, early hearing of CM(M) 537/2019, on an application filed by the petitioner, being CM No.32616/2021, was allowed by this Court in exercise of its discretion and while taking note of the urgency expressed in the application.
12. Insofar as the rectification sought in the order is concerned with directing the plaintiff to serve the respondents no.2 and 4 of CM No.32616/2021, it is noted in the said order that a joint reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents no.2 to 4. On a query to the respondent no.3 on the said date, whether or not he represents the other respondents, being respondents no.2 to 4, it was only stated by the respondent no.3 that he does not hold a power of attorney to this effect. However, a joint reply to CM(M) 537/2019 was filed by the respondents no.2 to 4.
13. It was in view of the position of parties explained above that the respondent no.3 and the counsel for the petitioner were requested to apprise the respondents no.1, 2, and 4 of the order passed. Therefore, no rectification is warranted in the order dated 20th September, 2021 in respect of paragraphs 7(a) and 7(d) of the application.
CM No. 38511/2021(for dismissal in limine) in CM(M) 537/2019
14. No grounds for dismissal in limine are made out.
15. Dismissed.
CM No. 38513/2021(for condonation of delay of 97 days in refiling two accompanying CMs) in CM(M) 537/2019
16. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
CM No. 364/2022 (for rectification/modification of order dated 15.11.2021by R-3) in CM(M) 537/2019
17. The present application has been filed by the applicant/respondent no.3 seeking, inter alia, rectification/modification of the order dated 15th
November, 2021 to the extent that the appearance of the respondents no. 2, 3, and 4 be recorded as appearing in person.
18. For the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed.
CM(M)537/2019 and CM(M) 1168/2021
19. Both the petitions arise out of the same suit bearing CS No.57749/2016 and impugned order, and are therefore, being taken up together.
20. CM(M)537/2019 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment dated 05th December, 2018 passed by the A
The intertwined interests of co-owners in property and the need to minimize litigation influenced the Court's decision to allow the conversion and mutation of the property from leasehold to freehold.
There is a right in favour of a co-owner to perfect his title in respect of a property jointly owned by him and therefore, seek conversion from leasehold to freehold and nutation of the property.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
The court upheld the final decree of partition and directed the execution of the lease deed in favor of the Petitioners, emphasizing the finality of the decree and the L&DO's obligation to comply wit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutation of leasehold rights should be carried out in accordance with the final partition decree, and parties are bound by the terms of the Se....
The court upheld that the conversion from leasehold to freehold cannot occur while the property is under re-entry and pending legal disputes, as specified in the Scheme's provisions.
The court established that parties cannot be held responsible for dues not attributable to them when determining property rights and executing leases.
Under the Scheme for conversion from leasehold to freehold, applications cannot be processed if the lease is cancelled and litigation regarding the property title is pending.
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
