Dinesh Kumar Goyal vs Ajai Kumar Goel & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 4579 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                    RFA (OS) No.100/2011

%                               Date of Decision: September 16, 2011

DINESH KUMAR GOYAL                                        ....Appellant
                Through               Mr. Rakesh Kansal, Advocate.

                     VERSUS

AJAI KUMAR GOEL & OTHERS                                  .....Respondents
                  Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
                      ORDER

% SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The appellant herein Dinesh Kumar Goyal and Ajai Kumar Goyal,

Praveen Kumar Goel and Arun Kumar Goyal, respondents herein are

brothers being children of late Dr. Shanti Swaroop Goyal and Lila Goyal.

2. Leasehold property no. A-68, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, New

Delhi was originally allotted in the joint names of late Dr. Shanti Swaroop

Goyal and Pradeep Kumar Goyal.

3. Dr. Shanti Swaroop Goyal died inestate in July 2000 and was

survived by Lila Goyal, the appellant and the three respondents. His

daughter Usha Garg inherited interest in the property. However, she,

along with Parveen Kumar Goyal, executed a Relinquishment Deed dated

2nd August 2000, which is registered with the Sub- Registrar, in respect of

50% share of Dr. Shanti Swaroop Goyal in favour of their mother Lila

Goyal, the appellant and the 2 remaining respondents, Ajai Kumar Goyal

and Arun Kumar Goyal. The appellant does not dispute the said

Relinquishment Deed and is a beneficiary thereunder.

4. The appellant, the three respondents and the mother approached the

DDA and got the property converted from leasehold to freehold vide

Conversion/conveyance Deed dated 4th January 2002. The appellant

admits and accepts this Conversion Deed. He is a signatory to the deed.

5. Late mother Smt. Leela Goyal had expired on 14 th November,

2008. The respondents i.e. the three brothers rely upon her registered Will

dated 1st February, 2007, in which she has bequeathed her 1/5 th share in

the aforesaid immoveable property in favour of the respondents and

appellant. The appellant is, therefore, beneficiary of the said Will.

6. The appellant and one of the respondents are in occupation of the

property, whereas the two brothers, who are also respondents herein, are

not in occupation of the property. This is possibly the reason why the

appellant wants to delay the proceedings. We do not think that the

appellant can have any grievance against the impugned order/decree.

However, we clarify that in case any application is filed by Usha Garg in

the suit, the same will be dealt with and examined in accordance with law.

7. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed in limine without any

order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 NA