The court affirmed that a suit for declaration does not necessitate all co-owners as parties if their interests don't impede the plaintiff's claims.

ORDER :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 115 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 8^th April, 2024 (hereinafter “impugned order”) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 16606/2016.

2. The respondent No.1 (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) had filed a civil suit against one Mr.Surinder Kumar Gupta and the petitioner company (defendants No.1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court respectively) seeking the relief of declaration of sale deed dated 7^th May, 2015 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void. In the said civil suit, the defendant No.2, i.e., the petitioner herein had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds. Furthermore, the respondent No.1, i.e., the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.

3. Vide the impugned order dated 8^th April, 2024, the learned Trial Court dismissed petitioner’s application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and allowed the application of respondent No.1 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant civil revision petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside, since the same has been passed without taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

5. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had averred in the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC that as per pleadings of the respondent No.1, he is a co-owner only to the extent of 6.25% undivided share in the suit property. The petitioner has become the owner of the suit property by purchasing the same from the owners of the suit property.

6. It is submitted that as per the sale deed dated 7^th May, 2015, filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff along with the suit, the transaction value of the said sale deed was Rs.1,82,00,000/-, however, the respondent No.1undervalued the suit only for Rs.30,00,000/-. The respondent No.2 has paid the Court fee of Rs.20/- whereas he is required to pay ad-valorem duty on the transaction value of the sale deed.

7. It is submitted that the co-owner, as alleged by the respondent No.1, who sold the entire suit property despite of allegedly having their shares of 93.75% were legally entitled to sell the suit property to the petitioner to comply with the terms and conditions and decision of an award/order dated 7^th April, 2015 passed in an arbitration matter.

8. It is submitted that the suit for declaration simpliciter is not maintainable without seeking any relief for possession as the respondent no.1 is not in possession of any portion of the suit property.

9. It is submitted that the respondent No.1, who allegedly has undivided share mere 6.25% in the suit property, has no justifiable claim to get the relief of declaration or possession against the petitioner who has acquired ownership of entire suit property including the alleged share of 6.25% of the respondent No.1.

10. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in law by failing to appreciate that the claim made by the respondent No.1 is unlikely to succeed. It is further submitted that the plaint lacks