IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan Singh, J.
Vijay Bhushan Arora - Appellant
Versus
Dipak Arora - Respondent
I.A. No. 3079 of 2013 in CS (OS) No. 1013 of 2012
Decided On : 15-12-2015
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Singh, J. The plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory and perpetual injunctions and for recovery of the sum of Rs.42,75,000/- along with pendent lite and future interest.
2. By way of this order, I propose to decide the pending application under Order XII Rule 6 filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the admissions made by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement and other documents i.e. Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties.
3. The plaintiff is the eldest brother of the defendant Nos.1 and 3 and the defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1, who is the youngest brother of the plaintiff. No relief is being sought against defendant No.3 and he is being impleaded only as a proforma defendant.
Facts as per the Plaint
4. Admittedly, Late Sh.K.N.Arora and his wife Smt.Raj Kumari Arora, the deceased parents of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 3, had jointly purchased a plot of land admeasuring 296 sq. yds., bearing Municipal No.S-335, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048 from M/s DLF United Ltd. vide a duly registered sale deed dated 23rd October, 1972, registered as Document No.6899 in Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No.3006 on pages 59 to 60 on the 25th day of October, 1972 by the Sub-Registrar Assurances, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
Thereafter, the deceased parents of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 3 had constructed the ground floor, first floor and second floor on the said property bearing No.S-335, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048 (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property', which also comprises of open areas).
4.1 Late Shri. K.N.Arora, the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 3 expired intestate on 13th April, 1998 leaving behind him the following legal heirs:
a. Smt.Raj. Kumari Arora wife
b. Smt.Mohini Ahuja daughter
c. Sh.V.B. Arora son
d. Sh.A.K.Arora son
e. Sh.Dipak Arora son
4.2 After the death of their father, Late Sh.K.N. Arora, the plaintiff and his brothers, who are the defendant Nos.1 and 3 relinquished their entire shares in the suit property in favour of their mother, Smt.Raj Kumari Arora, vide a Relinquishment Deed dated 24th April, 1989 duly registered as document No.5198 in Addl. Book No.1, Vol. No.6443 on pages 87 to 89 on 17th June, 1989. The sister of the plaintiff, namely, Mrs. Mohini Ahuja, also relinquished her share in the suit property in favour of her mother, Smt.Raj Kumari Arora, vide a relinquishment deed duly registered as document No.7841 in Addl. Book No.I, Vol. No.6530 on 29th September, 1989.
4.3 By virtue of the aforesaid relinquishment deeds, the mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 3, namely, Smt.Raj Kumari Arora, who was already the half owner of the said suit property, became the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the entire suit property.
4.4 Smt.Raj Kumari Arora, vide a Will dated 2nd June, 1998, duly registered as document No.4483 in Additional Book No.III, Vol. 75 at pages 103 to 105 on 2nd June, 1998, while recording the execution of the gift deed dated 4th June, 1993 gifting the entire ground floor of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathed the entire first floor along with undivided interest in the land underneath the building of the said property in favour of the defendant No.3 and further bequeathed the entire second floor along with undivided interest in the land underneath the suit property to the defendant Nos.1 and 2.
4.5 The mother of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 3, namely, Smt.Raj Kumari Arora, passed away on 8th August, 1999 and as per the terms of the gift deed dated 4th June, 1993 and her Will dated 2nd June, 1998 all the parties hereto became the owners having interests in their respective portions gifted and/or bequeathed to them.
4.6 It is the case of the plaintiff that as the previous sale deed was a sham transaction made only with the purpose that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 may be able to avail loans from