Delhi High Court
Sh. J.P. Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 May, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No.132/2014
% 23rd May, 2014
SH. J.P. GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P. Gupta, appellant in person.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.9022/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. No.9021/2014 (condonation of delay)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 149 days
in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RSA 132/2014 Page 1 of 4
+ RSA No.132/2014
3. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgments of the courts
below; of the trial court dated 29.2.2012 and the first appellate court
dated 16.5.2013; by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff
seeking transfer of the registration of his late son Sh. Raghuvendra
Kumar of a HIG plot in the name of the appellant/plaintiff has been
dismissed.
4. The facts of the case are that Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar, son
of the appellant got himself registered with the
respondent/defendant/DDA for allotment of a HIG plot vide application
no.55380 dated 11.4.1981. Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar had deposited an
FDR alongwith the application and also deposited Rs.5,000/- vide the
registration receipt no.844/81. Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar thereafter
unfortunately expired on 5.4.1988. Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar was
survived by his wife and a minor daughter of about six months.
5. The appellant/plaintiff claims that the wife and minor
daughter left the house after the death of Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar and
are not traceable and consequently the appellant/plaintiff/father is the
RSA 132/2014 Page 2 of 4
only legal heir in whose name the registration should be transferred by
the DDA.
6. Both the courts below noted that the appellant/plaintiff is a
class-II legal heir because there are class-I legal heirs being the widow
and the minor child of the deceased Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar. The
courts below have accordingly held that the appellant/plaintiff would not
have a right more so because the appellant/plaintiff had concealed the
details of the addresses of the widow and the minor child. The courts
below note that on the one hand the appellant/plaintiff claims that he has
no knowledge of the address of the widow and the minor child,
simultaneously it is also stated by the appellant/plaintiff that the widow
subsequently remarried and which showed that appellant was aware of
the address of the widow and the minor child. The courts below also
note that the marriage of Sh. Raghuvendra Kumar was an arranged
marriage and therefore the appellant would in any case know the address
of the parents of the widow and could have consequently easily traced
out the address of the widow and the minor child but that has not been
done because the appellant wants to get the registration of the plot
RSA 132/2014 Page 3 of 4
mutated in his name, although the legal right is of the class-I legal heirs
being the widow and the minor child.
7. I do not find any error of fact or of law in the impugned
judgments of the courts below, much less a substantial question of law
arising under Section 100 CPC for this appeal to be entertained, and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MAY 23, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
