Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Rajat Joon, S/O Shri Rajinder Singh Joon – Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Singh Joon, S/O Shri Pratap Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. additional documents for adjudication of i.a. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of the plaintiff's lineage (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding applicant's locus standi and plaintiff's adoption (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's analysis of locus standi and burden of proof (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. conclusion on allowing the i.a. for evidence (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT :
I.A. 6980/2022 (BY APPLICANT - FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2020)
1. The instant application is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside the decree passed by this Court consequent to the compromise entered into by the parties to the suit.
2. The present suit was filed seeking, primarily, a declaration that the plaintiff is the son of defendants no. 1 and 2.
3. An examination of the record of the suit indicates that Mr. Rajat Joon, the plaintiff, was the biological son of Mr. Rajinder Singh, defendant no. 1 and Mrs. Gayatri Devi, defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 1 had a brother, namely, late. Mr. Krishna Joon, whose name had been entered as the father of the plaintiff in his school r
The court held that a compromise decree can be challenged by non-parties if they demonstrate a legitimate interest affected by the outcome, emphasizing the need for substantiation of such claims.
A consent decree, valid under CPC rules, cannot be challenged in independent suits; remedy lies only in the court that recorded the compromise.
(1) Daughter has been recognised and treated as a coparcener by birth with equal rights and liabilities as of that of a son – It is not necessary that a coparcener whose daughter is conferred with ri....
Compromise decrees are binding unless legally challenged, and mere allegations of fraud do not invalidate established agreements without sufficient proof or a court ruling to the contrary.
For a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the biological parents must give the child in adoption, and the adoptive parents must take the child, which was not proven in this c....
A separate suit to set aside a compromise decree is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC, and challenges to such decrees must be raised in the court that issued them.
The court established that valid adoption requires proof of giving and taking by biological and adoptive parents, which was not demonstrated, leading to equal shares among heirs.
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
