The court ruled that ownership disputes involving fiduciary relationships require trial, and decrees cannot be made solely based on preliminary applications under procedural rules.

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, CJ:

Introduction:

1. The present appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 02nd November, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in three suits between the parties, wherein, the learned Single Judge, dismissed the respective applications of the appellants herein, thereby cancelling the duly registered conveyance deed dated 10th June, 2014, executed by the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) in favour of appellant, i.e., Mayank Dayal, and declared late Smt. Shankuntala Devi, the deceased grandmother of the appellant, as owner of the suit property, i.e., C-216, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi. The suit filed by Mayank Dayal was dismissed, while the two suits filed by late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, were decreed in favour of the respondents herein, in the following manner:

I. CS(OS) 1640/2014, titled as Shakuntala Devi versus Vinod K Dayal and Others: The impugned judgment has dismissed I.A. No. 20927/2014 filed by the appellants herein (defendants in the suit), under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), for rejection of plaint, and has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents herein (plaintiffs in the suit).

II. CS(OS) 2441/2014, titled as Mayank Dayal versus Shakuntala Devi and Others: The impugned judgment has dismissed I.A. No. 6501/2017 filed by the appellant herein, i.e., Mayank Dayal (plaintiff in the suit), under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, for judgment on admissions, and has also further dismissed the said suit filed by the appellant herein.

III. CS(OS) 3631/2014, titled as Shakuntala Devi versus Mayank Dayal and Others: The impugned judgment has dismissed I.A. No. 1003/2015 filed by appellants herein (defendants in the suit), under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of plaint, and has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents herein (plaintiffs in the suit).

2. Though a common judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge in relation to the three suits, three separate appeals have been filed to challenge the said judgment.

Case Canvassed by Mayank Dayal (Appellants herein):

3. The facts, as put forth on behalf of Mayank Dayal (defendant in CS(OS) 1640/2014 and CS(OS) 3631/2014; plaintiff in CS(OS) 2441/2014), are as under:

3.1 Maternal uncle of Mayank Dayal, namely, Sh. Balbir Singh Goel, was a member of the Sarvodaya Cooperative Housing Society Limited. He was allotted a plot bearing no. C-216 in the residential colony known as „Sarvodaya Enclave‟ vide a sub-lease executed in his favour on 25th June, 1968. The said plot was lying vacant, as Sh. Balbir Singh Goel was a contractor with the Military Engineering Service (“MES”) and was well settled and residing at Mall Road in Ambala, Haryana.

3.2 Smt. Sudha Dayal, mother of Mayank Dayal, was the youngest sister of Sh. Balbir Singh Goel. Mother of Smt. Sudha Dayal wanted her youngest daughter, i.e., Smt. Sudha Dayal, to reside in her own house in close vicinity to her siblings. Accordingly, Mr. Balbir Singh Goel, out of natural love and affection for his youngest sister, requested the Sarvodaya Cooperative Housing Society Limited to transfer the said vacant plot, bearing No. C-216, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi, in favour of his sister, Smt. Sudha Dayal. Subsequently, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi approved the transfer of the plot in favour of Smt. Sudha Dayal, which was communicated by the DDA vide letter dated 15th March, 1973. Thus, a perpetual sub-lease was executed in her favour on 28th April, 1973.

3.3 In the year 1974-75, father of the appellant, out of his own earnings and savings, started the construction of the ground floor of the said property. The construction was completed in the year 1976. However, at the request of his grandparents, i.e., Sh. Maheshwar Dayal and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Mayank Dayal‟s parents permitted his grandparents, i.e., father-in-law and mother-in-law of Smt. Sudha Dayal, to move into the ground floor of the aforesaid property.

3.4 Sh. Vinod Dayal, father of Mayank Dayal wanted to construct the fir