Delhi High Court
Smriti Bhasin vs Meera Sawhney on 24 November, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 24th November, 2011
+ RFA (OS) No.51/2010
SMRITI BHASIN ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Anis Ahmed, Advocate.
versus
MEERA SAWHNEY ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Savita Prabhakar, Advocate for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
CM No.10026/2011 (delay) & CM No.10027/2011 (delay in re-filing)
in RFA (OS) No.51/2010
12 days delay in filing the appeal and equal number of
delays in re-filing the appeal are condoned for the reasons
mentioned in the two applications.
RFA (OS) No.51/2010
1. Late Sh.Mulakh Raj Sawhney was the perpetual
lessee under L&DO of property bearing Municipal No.58,
Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. He died on 04.06.1981. His wife
Ved Wati, son Arvind Kumar and daughter Samriti Sawhney
were his legal heirs and thus inherited the estate.
2. Arvind Kumar applied to L&DO for his name to be
mutated as the perpetual lessee on account of death of his
father, and for which claim, he relied upon a Deed of
Relinquishment dated 14.08.1981, Ex.PW-1/2, stating that his
mother and his sister were the executants thereof and that
they had relinquished their share in his father's property and
that he was the beneficiary of the relinquishment.
3. Vide letter dated 08.09.1992, Ex.PW-1/3, L&DO
mutated the property in the name of Arvind Kumar.
4. At the time Arvind Kumar inherited the property
from his father and upon the Relinquishment Deed being
executed, it consisted of only the ground floor constructed on
the plot. With his funds he effected further constructions
thereon.
5. During his life time Arvind Kumar permitted his
sister Samriti Bhasin to occupy the second floor and barsati of
the property, as claimed by the wife of Arvind Kumar, purely as
a gratuitous occupant.
6. Arvind Kumar died on 28.10.2002.
7. On the death of Arvind Kumar, claiming that she
needed rental income, his wife Meera Sawhney claims to have
requested her sister-in-law to vacate the portion of the property
in her possession. At that stage Smt.Samriti Bhasin filed a suit,
plaint whereof is Ex.PW-1/12. She challenged the Deed of
Relinquishment dated 14.08.1991.
8. Meera Sawhney filed a suit seeking possession and
mesne profits against Samriti Bhasin.
9. Vide judgment and decree Ex.PW1/13, suit filed by
Samriti Bhasin was dismissed holding the Deed of
Relinquishment to be validly executed, against which a Regular
First Appeal filed by Samriti Bhasin came to be dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 19.11.2008, Ex.PW1/14.
10. In the suit filed by Meera Sawhney, Samriti Bhasin
took a stand that she was an equal owner of the suit property,
for the reason she challenged the Deed of Relinquishment.
11. Highlighting that at the stage when Deed of
Relinquishment was executed only ground floor existed on the
property and that further constructions were effected by Arvind
Kumar, we proceed to note that since Samriti Bhasin's
challenge to the Relinquishment Deed had failed up to this
Court, she probably lost interest in the suit filed by her sister-
in-law, and was proceeded against ex-parte on 18.04.2009.
12. Noting the aforesaid facts, at the heart of which is
the fact that Samriti Bhasin's challenge to the Deed of
Relinquishment dated 14.08.1981 having failed, the learned
Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree dated
20.08.2009 has decreed the suit qua possession. Mesne profits
have been declined in the absence of any satisfactory evidence
led qua the prevailing rentals.
13. Samriti Bhasin has filed the instant appeal in which
she alleges that she was lulled into not continuing to defend
the suit filed by her sister-in-law on account of intervention by
family members who made the two sisters-in-law see reason
and settle the dispute.
14. Highlighting that no written acknowledgement of
any settlement has been filed, we further note that Samriti
Bhasin has further pleaded in the appeal, which we find was
filed in the month of March 2010, that against the judgement
and decree dated 19.11.2008, dismissing the Regular First
Appeal filed by Samriti Bhasin, i.e. the judgment Ex.PW-1/13
she has sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.
15. In the reply filed by Meera Sawhney to the
application seeking stay of operation of the impugned decree,
which reply was filed on 31.01.2011, in paragraph 11 it is
stated that the SLP filed by Samriti Bhasin is lying under
objections in the Registry of the Supreme Court since
08.07.2009 and that Samriti Bhasin is not interested in
prosecuting the same.
16. Today is 24th November 2011. Learned counsel for
the appellant states that the SLP filed by Samriti Bhasin is still
lying under objections.
17. The long and short of the above facts noted is that
challenge by the appellant to the Deed of Relinquishment
dated 14.08.1981 having failed in the suit filed by her, her
defence in the counter suit filed by her sister-in-law has no legs
to stand on.
18. Accordingly, we affirm the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the learned Single Judge but we refrain from
imposing any cost keeping in view the relationship between the
parties.
CM No.10025/2011(Stay)
Since the appeal has been decided today itself, instant
application which seeks stay of operation of the impugned decree
is dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
S.P.GARG, J.
NOVEMBER 24, 2011
sa
