IMPORTANT POINT
Plaint must disclose some cause of action.

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.—This is an application under Order VII Rule CPC filed by Defendant No.1 seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The above suit has been filed by Mr. Anand Datwani against his wife, Mrs. Geeti Bhagat Datwani and her parents, Mr. Manmohan Bhagat and Mrs. Sumohini Bhagat, Defendants 2 and 3 for partition, declaration and permanent injunction.The Plaintiff seeks partitioning of the property, including the land and building, at 32, Shivji Marg, Westend Greens, Rangpuri, New Delhi (‘the suit property’) in equal shares between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and a declaration that the undertaking given by him on 29th April 2004 is null and void. The Plaintiff also seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from dealing with the suit property.

3. The Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were married on 13th October 1994. A daughter and a son were born on 4th August 1996 and 20th December 1999 respectively. The Plaintiff states that sometime in 1995-96, Defendant No.1, after consulting Defendants 2 and 3, expressed her desire to develop the land at 32, Rangpuri and requested the Plaintiff to provide the finances. According to the Plaintiff, it was mutually agreed that two independent residential units would be constructed and that the entire ‘farm land’ would be developed for residential purposes. According to the Plaintiff, at the request of Defendant No.1, he agreed to incur the cost and expenses of the said construction and development of the farm land. According to him, it was agreed that the Plaintiff would be vested with an equal and undivided share in the property comprising of the entire land and the two residential units to be built thereon. In other words, according to the Plaintiff, it was agreed that he and Defendant No.1 would enjoy the said property as joint owners, having equal right, title and interest.

4. It is stated in para 4 of the plaint that pursuant to the aforementioned agreement, the terms mutually agreed upon between the parties were recorded in a ‘Development Agreement’ (‘DA’) executed by the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 “in the year 1996 which was duly endorsed and witnessed by the Defendants 2 and 3.”

5. Significantly, neither is the date of the DA mentioned nor is a copy thereof been placed on record by the Plaintiff. However, it is the Plaintiff’s case that the parties acted upon the said DA. He also states that “being a dutiful husband and son-in-law in good faith, even though the defendants 2 and 3 had no right, title or claim in the suit property”, he agreed to the suggestion of Defendant No.1 that the rent received from the second residential unit constructed on the said land should be considered as part of the Defendant’s share in the property and should be given to Defendants 2 and 3 till December .2007.

6. Over time, disputes and differences arose between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff states that since Defendant No.1 threatened to walk away from the marriage, in order to save the marriage, he was coerced into signing an undertaking on 29th April 2004, although, according to him, Defendant No.1 had agreed and admitted to the Plaintiff that the said undertaking had no legal effect and would not be relied upon by her for any purpose. The Plaintiff has himself produced a copy of the said undertaking, which is in the form of an indenture on a stamp paper of Rs.100. It states that Defendant No.1 “is the sole and exclusive owner of premises bearing No.32, Shivji Marg, Westend Greens II, Rangpuri, New Delhi-110037. She acquired lands in 1989 vide three Sale Deeds all duly registered with the Registrar of Assurances, New Delhi situated in the revenue estate of Village Rangpuri alias Malikpur Kohi, Tehsil Mehrauli in the Union Territory of Delhi, bearing Khasra Nos.727 (4-16), 728 (2-18), 731 (0-6), 733 (0-9), 737 (0-7),738 (3-8) executed by the erstwhile owner Sangeeta Gupta, wife of Rajiv Gupta r/o 19, Banarsi Dass Estate, Delhi through her attorney Shri Ra