Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
R.N. Singh – Appellant
Versus
Murari Mirchandani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through this appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”], the Appellant [Defendant No.5 in the original Plaint] assails the Judgement dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) No. 1081/2014 captioned Murari Mirchandani vs. Jatinder Sardana & Ors., wherein an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.5 was dismissed holding that no ground was made out for rejection of the plaint, with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Admittedly, Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana was the owner of the property bearing No. S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"], who passed away on 05.04.2011. He was a bachelor and died intestate, leaving behind only Class II legal heirs:
i. Late Sh. Jatinder Sardana/Respondent No. 2 (Brother)
ii. Ms. Sushma Dewan/Respondent No. 3 (Sister)
iii. Late Ms. Sushila Arora/ Respondent No. 4 (Sister)
iv. Late Ms. Pushpa Mediratta/ Respondent No. 5 (Sister)
3. It is the case of Sh. Raj Narain Singh/Appellant that Late Sh. Surender Sardana
A plaint cannot be rejected in part; prior contractual rights supersede subsequent title claims, reinforcing the binding nature of earlier agreements in property disputes.
In order to decide whether suit is barred by any law, it is statement in plaint which will have to be construed. Defence made by defendant in suit must not be considered while deciding merits of appl....
Unregistered agreements do not confer rights in property; a valid title requires a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Only a registered sale deed conveys ownership; unregistered documents such as Agreements to Sell do not confer rights in property, making a suit based on them subject to rejection.
Rejection of plaint – Plaint cannot be rejected in part.
It is settled law that Court has to look into contents of plaint while invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and it cannot look into defense.
Ownership claims based solely on Power of Attorney and Will are insufficient without a registered sale deed; court reviews only the plaint and related documents for cause of action without delving in....
The registration of a Will does not establish its validity; proof is essential, and the question of limitation cannot be determined at the pleading stage if the facts are disputed.
A litigant cannot benefit from concealing material facts; res-judicata applies when the same issue has been previously adjudicated, and suits barred by limitation are not maintainable.
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
