Delhi High Court
Sumati Wadhwa vs Prince Tandon & Anr. on 24 July, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Ex.F.A. No.19/2017
% 24th July, 2017
SUMATI WADHWA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Surjeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
PRINCE TANDON & ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.25728/2017 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
Ex.F.A. No.19/2017 and C.M. No.25727/2017 (stay)
2. This Execution First Appeal is filed by the objector
against the impugned order of the executing court dated 26.5.2017
dismissing the objections filed by the appellant/objector and who is
claiming through the defendant/judgment debtor.
3. The facts of the case are that the suit was filed by the
plaintiff/Mr. Prince Tandon/respondent no.1 seeking partition of the
suit property bearing no.7/544, Indira Park, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. In this suit, the predecessor of the appellant, being
defendant in the suit namely Sh. Rajender Kumar Tandon, took up a
stand that he had become owner of the suit property on account of the
mother Smt. Nirmala Devi who owned the suit property had
bequeathed the same to Sh. Rajender Kumar Tandon in terms of the
Will executed by Smt. Nirmala Devi. There was no merit found in
this defence of the defendant/judgment debtor/Sh. Rajender Kumar
Tandon and the suit was decreed in terms of the judgment and decree
dated 9.5.2008. The judgment dated 9.5.2008 was challenged before
this Court in RFA No.260/2008 and this first appeal of Sh. Rajender
Kumar Tandon was dismissed. Thereafter Sh. Rajender Kumar
Tandon filed an SLP bearing no.16776/2016 in the Supreme Court and
which SLP was also dismissed vide its order dated 16.9.2016.
Therefore the partition decree passed on 9.5.2008 by the trial court
achieved finality and the defence of Sh. Rajender Kumar Tandon with
respect to his being sole owner of the suit property on account of
bequest by Smt. Nirmala Devi stood rejected.
4. The present appellant is claiming her rights through Sh.
Rajender Kumar Tandon inasmuch as it is pleaded that defendant/Sh.
Rajender Kumar Tandon had executed a gift deed agreement in favour
of his wife Smt. Neeru Tandon and Smt. Neeru Tandon executed a
registered gift deed in favour of the appellant/objector Smt. Sumati
Wadhwa. Admittedly Smt. Sumati Wadhwa is none else but the
daughter of Smt. Neeru Tandon and Sh. Rajender Kumar Tandon.
5. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned
order of the executing court inasmuch as the judgment and decree in a
suit, in view of Section 11 CPC not only binds the parties to the suit
but binds all the persons who claim through the parties to the suit. In
the present case, the appellant/objector daughter of Smt. Neeru
Tandon and Sh. Rajender Kumar Tandon is claiming through Smt.
Neeru Tandon and Sh. Rajender Kumar Tandon on account of first Sh.
Rajender Kumar Tandon transferring the suit property to Smt. Neeru
Tandon and then Smt. Neeru Tandon transferring the suit property by
a registered gift deed to the appellant/objector. Once Sh. Rajender
Kumar Tandon had not succeeded in his defence of his being the
exclusive owner, and which has been rejected right till the Supreme
Court, obviously then the appellant/objector who is claiming through
Sh. Rajender Kumar Tandon cannot succeed because Sh. Rajender
Kumar Tandon was not the sole owner of the property so as to transfer
the suit property firstly to his wife Smt. Neeru Tandon and for Smt.
Neeru Tandon to further transfer the same to the appellant/objector.
6. Dismissed.
JULY 24, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
