Delhi High Court
Motian Devi Lamba vs Chet Ram Gupta & Others on 22 April, 2013
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% I.A. No.9328/2011 in CS(OS) No.2147/2010
+ Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2013
# MOTIAN DEVI LAMBA ......Plaintiff
Through: Mr. P. Choudhary, Advocate
versus
$ CHET RAM GUPTA & OTHERS ......Defendants
Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Adv. for D-1
Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate for
defendant Nos.2 to 4
Mr. Ameit Andley & Mr. Arun K.
Sharma, Advocates for applicant in
I.A. No. 4029/2013
Mr. V.K. Tandon & Mr. Ajay Sethi,
Advocates for Delhi Police along with
SI Gyaneshwar Singh, PS-EOW Crime
Branch
AND
% I.A. No. 9229/2011 in CS(OS) 2818/1989
SH. CHET RAM GUPTA ..... Plaintiff
CS(OS) No. 2147/2010 & 2818/1989 Page 1 of 10
Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani with Mr. S.K.
Chaturvedi, Advocates
versus
SMT.MOTIA DEVI LAMBA ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. P. Chaudhary, Advocate for
defendant No.1
Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate for
defendant Nos.2 to 4
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
By this common order I shall dispose of two applications under
Order I Rule 10 CPC filed in these two suits by one Mr. Joginder Lamba,
who claims himself to be the son of Smt.Motian Devi, who is the
plaintiff in suit no.2147/2010 and defendant no.1 in suit no. 2818 of
1989, seeking his own impleadment as also of all his brothers and
sisters in both the suits in which many persons are allegedly trying to
usurp one plot in Greater Kailash, New Delhi which stands registered in
the name of applicant's mother who is permanently settled in United
Kingdom as an NRI.
2. CS(OS) No.2818/1989 was filed by one Chet Ram, who died
during the pendency of the suit and is now being represented by his
legal representatives, for specific performance of an agreement
allegedly entered into between him and defendant no.1 Motian Devi in
London in September-October, 1986 whereby she had agreed to sell to
him her plot of land no.W-73, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. The deal
was allegedly finalized with the involvement of defendant no.3 in the
said suit of Chet Ram, namely, Shri S.P.Gupta. Since she failed to
execute the sale deed thereafter this suit came to be filed in which the
deceased plaintiff had claimed that he had been handed over physical
possession of the suit plot in pursuance of the agreement to sell.
3. Defendant no.1 is contesting the suit for specific performance
through her attorney V.P.Gupta, inter alia, on the ground that she had
never agreed to sell the suit plot to the deceased plaintiff Chet Ram
and when he had visited her in London In September,1986 with
defendant no.3 for purchase of the suit plot she had told them that she
had decided to transfer the suit plot to defendant no.2 who was her
family doctor. Then she had executed a power of attorney in favour of
the deceased Chet Ram only for the purpose of effecting transfer of the
suit plot in favour of defendant no.2 but since after leaving London
Chet Ram did not do anything she had revoked the power of attorney
given to him and on 6th April,1987 she executed a gift deed in respect
of the suit plot in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 4. in Chet Ram's suit,
both of whom are also now dead and are being represented by their
legal representatives.
4. Chet Ram's suit is being contested on behalf of defendant nos. 2
and 4 also relying upon the gift deed allegedly executed in their favour
by defendant no.1 on 6th April,1987.
5. In Chet Ram's suit issues were framed on 9th November,1994 but
evidence has not been concluded so far.
6. During the pendency of Chet Ram's suit Smt. Motian Devi also
filed a suit(being suit no. 2147 of 2010) through her attorney and son-
in-law Shri Maninder Singh Shah for a declaration that the documents
which the deceased Chet Ram was relying upon in his suit for seeking
specific performance were were null and void, forged and fabricated
and similarly the gift deed dated 6th April,1987 allegedly executed by
her in favour of deceased G.S.Gupta(defendant no.2 in Chet Ram's suit
and defendant no.4 in Motian Devi's suit) and Ravi Prakash(who was
defendant no.4 in Chet Ram's suit and in Motian Devi's suit is being
represented by his legal heirs) in respect of her plot in Greater Kailash-
II were also forged and fabricated. She also claimed a decree of
possession in respect of her plot against the legal heirs of late Shri Chet
Ram. She is claiming in her suit that she had never agreed to sell her
plot to anyone and late Chet Ram and S.P.Gupta had conspired to
cheat her and when differences arose between them Chet Ram had
filed the suit. She also claimed that she never gifted the suit plot to
anyone and further that she had also not authorized anyone to contest
Chet Ram's suit about which she was in fact not even aware and upon
coming to know that some persons were conspiring to deprive her of
her plot and were parties to Chet Ram's suit she appointed her son, the
present applicant Shri Joginder Singh Lamba, as her attorney in
March,2010 to pursue Chet Ram's suit and he in turn appointed her
son-law Shri Maninder Singh Shah as attorney on 16th March,2010 and
he then filed the present suit on her behalf for the aforesaid reliefs.
She also claimed that she had not authorised anyone to contest Chet
Ram's suit. This suit of Smt. Motian Devi is being contested by the legal
heirs of late Shri Chet Ram and legal heirs of late G.S.Gupta and Ravi
Prakash who were during their life time claiming themselves to be the
donees of the suit plot by virtue of gift deed dated 6th April,1987
allegedly executed by Smt. Motian Devi. In her suit Shri V.P.Gupta who
was earlie contesting Chet Ram's suit on her behalf as her attorney has
also been impleaded as defendant no.2.
7. Now, Shri Joginder Singh Lamba, son of Smt. Motian Devi has filed
separate applications in both these suits under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
alleging that suit plot is an HUF property since it was purchased by Smt.
Motian Devi from HUF fund. Therefore, the applicant and his brothers
and one sister named in the application are all co-parceners and which
fact stands admitted also by the defendants and so they, all of whom
are also permanent residents of U.K., being joint owners of the suit plot
have a right to be impleaded in both the suits even though Smt. Motian
Devi is claiming that she had not sold or gifted the suit plot to anyone.
8. The two impleadment applications are being opposed by the legal
heirs of late Shri Chet Ram, who was claiming that the suit plot had
been agreed to be sold to him by Smt. Motian Devi late Dr.G.S.Gupta
and late Ravi Prakash who were claiming that the suit plot had been
gifted to them by Smt. Motian Devi.
9. I had heard the counsel for the applicant and the contesting parties
in the two suits.
10. From the aforesaid narration of facts leading to the filing of the
two suits in respect of a plot of land which is common in both the suits
is clear that the controversy which this Court is going to resolve is
whether Smt. Motian Devi, who admittedly had a registered
conveyance deed in her name only in respect of the suit plot had been
agreed to be sold by her to late Shri Chet Ram Gupta and/or whether
she had gifted the same to late Dr. G.S.Gupta and late Shri Ravi
Prakash. As noticed already, she is denying that she had agreed to sell
the suit plot to anyone and also that she had executed any gift deed.
To resolve these controversies between the existing parties in the two
suits presence of the applicant and his brothers and sister is not at all
necessary as parties in any of the two suits. The applicant by seeking
his impleadment in the two suits alongwith his brothers and one sister
is trying to introduce an altogether new controversy as to whether the
suit plot is the exclusive property of Smt. Motian Devi or is an HUF
property. That controversy has nothing to do with the adjudication of
the disputes between the existing parties in the two suits. The
applicant himself has also admitted in his applications that his mother
is already seriously contesting that she had agreed to sell the suit plot
to late Shri Chet Ram or that she had gifted the same to Dr.G.S.Gupta
or Shri Ravi Prakash.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant had only contended that even
though Smt.Motian Devi is contesting the rival claims of sale
agreement as well as gift but in case this Court returns a final verdict
against her and holds that she had either agreed to sell the suit plot to
late Shri Chet Ram or that she had gifted the same to late Dr. G.S.Gupta
and late Shri Ravi Prakash then in that event the applicant and his
brothers and sister would be seriously prejudiced as they would stand
deprived of their shares in the suit plot as joint owners/coparceners. In
my view, even for this reason the applicant and his brothers and sister
are not necessary parties in the present suit. In case they feel that their
mother has wrongly dealt with the suit plot as its exclusive owner they
can initiate separate legal proceedings against her. The fact that the
applicant is trying to introduce in these suits the controversy about the
status of the suit plot being HUF property and his mother having no
right to sell/gift the entire suit plot and for no other purpose is evident
from the fact that if at all there was no inter se dispute between him
and his mother he could take the plea in her suit, in which she has
claimed that she had appointed the applicant herein as her attorney
and he in turn had appointed her son-in-law as attorney to file suit on
her behalf and which fact the applicant is not disputing, he could while
taking the plea that she had never agreed to sell or gift the suit plot to
anyone also have taken an alternative plea in her suit that she in any
case could not have sold or gifted the suit plot since it was an HUF
property but no such plea was taken.
These applications of Shri Joginder Singh Lamba are,
therefore, dismissed but making it clear that if at all this applicant has
any dispute with his mother in respect of the suit plot and he initiates
any legal battle against her the dismissal of these applications filed by
him shall not come in his way and also that whatever has been
observed in the present order was for the purpose of denying his
impleadment in these suits.
A copy of this order shall be kept in the file of suit no.2818 of
1989.
P.K. BHASIN, J
APRIL 22, 2013
