Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Nitasha Kohli - Appellant
Versus
Ish Kumar Anand & Ors. - Respondents
CS(OS) 421 of 2021
Decided On : 07-03-2024
Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocate, for the Plaintiff.
Ms. Awaljot Kaur, for D-2 & 4.
Mr. Neeraj Jain & Mr. Dilraj Kumar, Advocates for D-3.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasized that objections of limitation and introducing a new cause of action can be addressed in the Written Statements and need not be considered at the stage of considering the amendment application.
Headnote:
Amendment - Suit for Partition and Permanent Injunction - CPC, 1908 - Section 151
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff seeks amendment of the Plaint to include the relief of Declaration of the Relinquishment Deeds as null and void and thus, change the original Title to that of Suit for Partition, Permanent Injunction and Declaration of the Relinquishment Deeds as null and void.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application for amendment of the Plaint, permitting the plaintiff to make the necessary changes.
Issues: Fraudulent execution of Relinquishment Deeds, amendment of the Plaint, and change in valuation of the Suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the objections of limitation and introducing a new cause of action can be taken by the defendants in their respective Written Statements, and the merits of these objections need not be considered at the stage of considering the amendment application.
Final Decision: The present application for amendment was allowed, and the applicant/plaintiff was permitted to amend the Plaint. The amended Plaint was to be filed within 15 days.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
I.A. 13786/2022 (u/O VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)
1. By way of present application, the plaintiff seeks amendment of the Plaint.
2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has filed the present Suit for Partition and Permanent Injunction in respect of Property bearing No. 16/17-B,Majlis Park, New Azadpur Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110033 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). The suit property was owned by Shri Madan Mohan Anand, who died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as the only legal heirs.
3. The defendant No. 1/Ish Kumar, subsequent to the filing of the present Suit, informed the plaintiff that he and Late Sh. Anil Kumar Anand the husband of defendant No. 2/father of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had orally partitioned the suit property amongst themselves and that the Property No. 16 was taken by the defendant No. 2 and the Property No. 17 was taken by the defendant No. 1/Ish Kumar.
4. It was also informed that they got the Relinquishment Deeds duly signed from the plaintiff and the defendant No. 5 by misrepresenting that they were required for Survivor Certificate Form and that they now want to settle the matter by paying Rs. 35,00,000/-to the plaintiff in respect of her share in the Property No. 17-B, Majlis Park, New Azadpur Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110033.
5. The applicant/plaintiff has claimed that the Relinquishment Deeds were got signed under misrepresentation and fraud and the same is evident from the fact that the suit property is a single built-up unit, but the same has been shown as two different properties in the Relinquishment Deeds.
6. The applicant/plaintiff, therefore, seeks permission to amend the Plaint to include the relief of Declaration of the Relinquishment Deeds as null and void and thus, change the original Title to that of Suit for Partition, Permanent Injunction and Declaration of the Relinquishment Deeds as null and void.
7. Likewise, in the various paragraphs of the Plaint where the suit property has been described as 16/17-B, Majlis Park, New Azadpur Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110033, the plaintiff seeks omission of "17" from the suit property and wants to amend the description to "Property Bearing No. 16B, Majlis Park, New Azadpur Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110033".
8. The applicant/plaintiff also intends to insert the Paragraph-6A to incorporate the information given to her by the non-applicant/defendant No. 1/Ish Kumar in July, 2022 as mentioned above and further seeks cancellation of Relinquishment Deeds claiming that they were fraudulently got executed from her.
9. Consequent amendments are sought to be made in the cause of action and the valuation paragraphs and also in the relief to include the cancellation of the Relinquishment Deeds.
10. The defendant No. 2/Rajesh Anand in his detailed Reply has refuted all the assertions made by the applicant/plaintiff. It is denied that there was no fraud committed in getting the Relinquishment Deeds signed from the applicant/plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Relinquishment Deeds were executed by the applicant/plaintiff herself on 10.08.2015 and thus, she was well aware about the execution of the Relinquishment Deeds and now, any relief to seek avoidance of the Relinquishment Deeds, is barred by time.
11. Furthermore, the applicant/plaintiff was well aware of the Will dated 31.03.1980 executed by Late Shri Madan Mohan Anand in favour of his sons, namely, the defendant No. 1/Ish Kumar Anand and Late Shri Anil Kumar Anand bequeathing the suit property in equal share to both the sons. In consonance with the aforesaid Will dated 31.03.1980, the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 executed the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 10.08.2015 in favour of Late Shri Anil Kumar Anand/husband of defendant No. 2 as has already been specified in the Written Statement.
12. It is claimed that the applicant/plaintiff is hand in glove with the defendant No. 1/Ish Kumar Anand, defendant No. 3/Sumati Anand Kwa
