Gurdev Singh vs Sunder Kaur And Anr.
1994 Latest Caselaw 754 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

(1) Sardar Gurdev Singh, plaintiff filed a suit claiming partition of property bearing No. 18/53, Ramjas Road, New Delhi and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of or parting with possession of the said property.

(2) Briefly the facts of the case as alleged in the plaint are that the father of the plaintiff was dealing in the wholesale kirana business in Pakistan. He separated his two sons,namely, S.Narinder Singh and S.Sohan Singh from the Huf in Pakistan itself and third son Gurcharan Singh was separated by a Release Deed dated 22nd November 1951 from the HUF.Thereafter, the Huf consisted of only father S.Prem Singh, mother Smt.Sundr Kaur and the plaintiff S.Gurdev Singh. Plaintiff started dealing in wholesale sugar business at Kota (Rajasthan) as partnership firm consisted of plaintiff and his father. But the family affairs were managed by mother Smt.Sunder Kaur as Trustee for the entire assets and property because she was a senior member of the HUF. She was given Rs.24,000.00 out of the ' Huf and rest Rs.2,000.00 was contributed by her in the purchase of this property in Delhi in July,1960. S.Sohan Singh, who was separated from the Huf was allowed to live in this house by the plaintiff as a licensee. ' He had no right, title or interest in the property in question. S.Sohan Singh died in November,1990 and his legal heirs decided to dispose of this property even though they have no right nor title or .interest on this property. The property in fact belongs to plaintiff and Smt. Sunder Kaur, his mother.

(3) It is in this background that he has sought an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit because of the apprehension that the legal heirs of deceased S.Sohan Singh may not dispose of the property.

(4) I his application has been contested by the defendants, During the pendency of the suit Smt.Sunder kaur, defendant No. I died and her legal heirs were brought on record. It has been denied by the defendants that the property in question was purchased out of the Huf funds. According to them, this property was purchased by late Smt.Sunder Kaur from her own resources in July 1960, by which time, the plaintiff had already taken his share of Huf by partitioning the moveable and immoveable properties. He was also party to the Deed of Relinquishment dated 21st January, 1957 whereby Huf assets had been distributed. Plaintiff took his share and separated from the HUF. The Partition Deed was registered on 27th March,1958. The plaintiff by forging the documents has started falsely claiming the property to be Huf property.

(5) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documentary evidence and oral submissions made at the bar. It is not disputed by either party that the property in question at Ramjas Road was purchased by Smt.Sunder Kaur in her name in July,1960 vide registered Sale Deed. It is also not disputed that S.Sohan Singh, brother of the plaintiff was in occupation of this property ever since. The documentary evidence placed on record shows that Huf was partitioned by a registered Partition Deed dated 27th March,1958 and that there was a Relinquishment Deed also executed dated 1st January 1957. Perusal of the documents show that the plaintiff had taken his share amounting to Rs.45,000.00 for. moveable assets. He also filed an affidavit dated 17th March,1986 indicating that he signed the Release Deed with his free will and that he signed the map of property exclusively purchased by his mother Smt.Sunder Kaur. That he had no right over the said property specified in the map. That he had received full and complete compensation of the family properties and his right as legal heir in moveable and immoveable properties left by his father had been completely settled. That nothing was duo to him from his mother and brothers and other legal heirs of his father. This document was also registered and so is the Deed of Relinquishment. The contention of the plaintiff that the property in question was purchased with the money given from the Huf is a question to be determined after recording the evidence. At this juncture, prima facie the documentary evidence placed on record by defendants show that this property was partitioned by late Smt.Sunder Kaur and she was the exclusive owner of this property and that is the reason it was purchased in her name and plaintiff also admitted this fact in the documents referred to above. At this stage it cannot be said that the property was purchased by the mother as "Benami". She gifted this property in favor of her son S.Sohan Singh way back on 3rd March, 1984 for which the plaintiff never raised any objection at that time. Therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the defendant have no right in the property in question. Letter dated 6th January, 1984 issued by the Joint Direcot(OSB), D.D.A. shows that the gift of this property made by Smt. Sunder Kaur in favor her son was approved by the Delhi Development Authority (in short DDA). Therefore, this property stand in the name of S.Sohan Singh in the record of D.D.A. Defendants being the LRs of S.Sohan Singh, in whose name the property stood in the records of Dda prima facie-have a right in this property. In view of this overwhelming documentary evidence placed on record if injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff is granted it may be against the interest of the defendants.

(6) Taking into consideration documentary evidence placed by the defendants, prima facie it cannot be said that the defendants have no right to live in this property or that the right, title and interest of the house will exclusively vest with the plaintiff. As regards directions to the defendants not to dispose of the property, the defendants in their reply to the application have already indicated that they have no intention to transfer, alienable or part with possession of this property nor they were negotiating for its sale. in view of the undertaking given by the defendants expressing that they have no intention to alienate, transfer, sell or part with possession of property, no order is required to be passed on this score. With these observations, the application stands disposed.