Swaran Lata vs Amit Modi And Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 20 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Sharma, J.

1. This is an application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for impleading him in place of the plaintiff or as one of the co-plaintiffs in the present suit.

2. This application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking for his addition as a party in the suit on the ground that in an earlier suit filed by the plaintiff against him being Suit No. 752/1996 in the Court of Shri Satnam Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi, a compromise had been arrived at between the parties out of Court in terms of which the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise on 26.3.1997. In the present application it is stated that Shri Aqeel Ahmed made payment to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement dated 28.6.1994 executed by the plaintiff and in pursuance of which the plaintiff also executed a receipt, Will and agreement for sale etc., in his favour. It is also mentioned that it was agreed between the parties that Shri Aqeel Ahmed would get himself imp leaded as party in place of the plaintiff. The order passed in the said suit including the copies of the joint statement of the parties have been filed by the applicant in the present suit.

3. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree for possession in respect of the suit property bearing No. 184, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi - 110 092 by evicting defendants No.1 and 2 and their associates from the suit property and also for cancellation of the documents executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.5, subsequently by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.6 and thereafter by defendant No.6 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2.

4. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is a sanyasin and unmarried till even on the date of filing of the suit. She has further stated that she was allotted the suit property by defendant No.7 and she herself signed the perpetual sub-lease deed dated 15.6.1976 and the same was duly registered. A photocopy of the said sub-lease deed is placed on record. However, one of the important pages of the said document has not been filed by the plaintiff and a complete copy of the said sub-lease deed is on record having been filed by the defendants along with their written statement. The aforesaid sub-lease deed shows that the same was executed by Smt. Swaran Lata, wife of Shri S.R. Saini on 11.6.1976 which exclusively indicates that Sml. Swaran Lata was married prior to 11.6.1976.

5. The aforesaid suit land was purchased by defendant No.3 and the same was sold in favour of defendant No.5 by defendant No.3 subsequent to which defendant No.5 transferred the same in favour of defendant No.6 and thereafter the defendant transferred the said suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. The defendant No.1 after purchasing the property from defendant No.6 made an an application to Delhi Development Authority, defendant No.8, on 15.4.1995 for conversion of the property into free hold upon which defendant No.8 after making a detailed enquiry including that of the identify of Smt. Swaran Lata, defendant No.3, as stated in the written statement of defendant No.8, executed a conveyance deed dated 22.11.1995 in favour of defendant No. 1 and thus converted the property into free hold. The conveyance deed with a photo of defendant No.1 appended thereto was registered by the Sub-Registrar on 23.11.1995, as stated in the written statement of defendant No.1. It is also stated in the written statement that defendant No.1 has also raised construction on the plot and is in physical possession thereof.

6. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 19.9.1996. In the present suit, the plaintiff does not mention anything about the suit that she had filed against Shri Aqeel Ahmed on 19.4.1996. In the present suit, the plaintiff had also not mentioned that she had at any point of time executed any agreement for sale, Will, receipt etc., on 28.6.1994 in favour of Shri Aqeel Ahmed, the applicant or that she had sold the suit property to him. It is also interesting to note that in the aforesaid suit filed by her and registered in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, as Suit No. 752/1996, she sought for an injunction against the applicant from interfering with her possession.

7. In the present suit it is admitted by the plaintiff that she is not in possession of the suit property and, therefore, is seeking for a decree for recovery of possession from defendants No.1 and 2. This indicates that the suit filed by her in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, registered as Suit No. 752/1996 against the applicant was a frivolous suit wherein she claimed to be in possession and sought a restraint order against the applicant restraining him from interfering with possession of the plaintiff. None of the defendants was made a party in the said suit. In the said suit compromise was shown to have been arrived at and the suit was decreed on the basis of the aforesaid compromise and on the basis thereof the present application has been moved by the applicant seeking to implead him in place of the plaintiff.

8. The plaintiff is stated to be a sanyasin and is an unmarried lady. The perpetual sub-lease deed on the basis of which the plaintiff is stated to have acquired title indicates that Smt. Swaran Lata in whose favour the perpetual sub-lease deed was executed was a married lady and not a sanyasin and unmarried lady as is stated in the plaint. In order to cover up the aforesaid position, the plaintiff intentionally did not file the effective pages of the deed. The page containing endorsement of execution and signatures was deliberately withheld by the plaintiff which has been filed by defendant No.1 along with the written statement. The sub-lease deed shows that the same was executed by Smt. Swaran Lata, wife of Shri S.R. Saini on 11.6.1976 which indicates and proves that Smt. Swaran Late was married on 11.6.1976 and the plaintiff admittedly being unmarried and a sanyasin could not have delivered any title and right to the applicant in pursuance of certain documents executed by her and taken note of in a separate suit filed by the plaintiff against the applicant which was a frivolous suit and instituted only for the purpose of gaining excess to and for making a cause of action as a party in the present suit by the applicant.

9. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 19.9.1996 that is subsequent to the execution of the alleged receipt, will and agreement for sale in favour of the applicant and also subsequent to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff against the applicant which was filed on 19.4.1996 before the Court of Additional District Judge. None of the aforesaid facts finds mention in the present suit and the, same is again suppressed. Interestingly the plaintiff is stated to have, sold the property on 8.7.1996 in favour of Shri Gulshan Kumar who had also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was registered as LA. No. 2070/1997 which was however dismissed on the last date in default.

10. The applicant has not placed on record any document except for the orders and the joint statements recorded in Suit No. 752/1996. No document has been placed on record which can prove derivation of right and title by the applicant from the plaintiff. The sub-lease deed was executed by the Delhi Development Authority with Smt. Swaran Late wife of Shri S.R. Saini and not with Suit. Swaran Lata daughter of Shri Harish Chand. No title could therefore be said to have passed to the applicant in respect of the suit property and, therefore, the applicant could not have any interest in the suit property and the applicant, therefore, is not a necessary party at all for the purpose of deciding the suit, at least at this stage and, therefore, the application filed by the applicant for impleading him as one of the co-plaintiffs stands dismissed.

Suit No. 2368/1994.

11. List this matter before the Joint Registrar on 25.2.1999 for admission/denial of documents and before the Court on 20.4.1999 for framing of issues.