Delhi High Court
Mohinder Pal Singh vs Dda & Anr. on 18 September, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.2843/2012
% 18th September, 2012
MOHINDER PAL SINGH ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Adv.
Versus
DDA & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
IA No.17266/2012(exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) No.2843/2012
1.
Plaintiff claims to be the son of Sh.Kewal Singh and Smt.
Dalbir Kaur. The suit seeks declaration, possession and injunction with
respect to a property bearing no. 1/31, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi situated
on a plot admeasuring of 2000 sq.yds. As per para 2 of the plaint, the father
of the plaintiff died way back on 18.10.1991 i.e. roughly about 21 years
back. Para 5 of the plaint further states that with respect to the suit property
a registered perpetual sub-lease deed has been executed by the DDA in
favour of the mother of the defendant no.2 i.e one Mrs. Shamie Singh way
back on 26.5.1969. By the suit the plaintiff effectively seeks cancellation of
this registered perpetual sub-lease deed in favour of Mrs. Shamie Singh
executed on 26.5.1969 by the defendant no.1/DDA.
2. As already stated above, father of the plaintiff, Sh. Kewal Singh
died on 18.10.1991 i.e roughly about 22 years after the lease deed dated
26.5.1969 was executed in favour of Mrs. Shamie Singh which as per the
plaint was wrongly executed in favour of Mrs. Shamie Singh, the alleged
second wife of Sh.Kewal Singh. The father of the plaintiff was fully entitled
to challenge the so-called illegal lease deed executed by the DDA in favour
of Mrs. Shamie Singh, but the father who lived for about 22 years after
execution of this perpetual sub-lease deed dated 26.5.1969, yet he did not
take any action to challenge this sub-lease deed in favour of Mrs. Shamie
Singh. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if a document stands
against a person, cancellation of the said document has to be sought within 3
years. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the father, Sh. Kewal Singh did
take steps to get the sub-lease deed dated 26.5.1969 cancelled, but he does
not know the fate thereof. If that be so the issue is far more worse because
what the father of the plaintiff could not do, the present plaintiff/son of Sh.
Sh. Kewal Singh cannot do 21 years after the death of his father and about
43 years after the execution of the perpetual sub-lease deed dated 26.5.1969.
3. The object of law of limitation is two-fold. First is that there
must be an end to litigation in public interest. Secondly, by passage of time
valuable evidences are lost, and therefore, if there are legal rights existing
they have to be exercised within the limitation period prescribed. The
subject suit effectively seeking cancellation of perpetual sub-lease deed
executed in favour of Mrs. Shamie Singh, the mother of defendant no.2 is
therefore quite clearly grossly barred by limitation.
4. The counsel for the plaintiff argues that in favour of Sh. Kewal
Singh there was a perpetual sub-lease deed dated 23.10.1967, and therefore,
summons in this suit should be issued. I cannot agree because even if there
is a perpetual sub-lease deed dated 23.10.1967 in favour of Sh.Kewal Singh,
however as per para 5 of the plaint there is a subsequent perpetual sub-lease
deed dated 26.5.1969 in favour of Mrs. Shamie Singh and which stands till
date. What the father of the plaintiff could not do surely the plaintiff/son
cannot do.
5. In view of the above, the suit being grossly barred by the
limitation is accordingly dismissed.
IA No.17265/2012(u/O.39 R. 1 & 2 CPC)
6. Since the suit has been dismissed, no orders are required to be
passed in this application and the same is dismissed as such.
7. Copy of this judgment be sent by post as also the High Court
Process Serving Agency to the defendants.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
ak
