Delhi High Court
Radha Krishan Wadhwa vs Kusum Wadhwa & Anr. on 11 April, 2018
$~5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 11th April, 2018
+ CM (M) 8/2017
RADHA KRISHAN WADHWA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv.
versus
KUSUM WADHWA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sourabh Malhotra, Adv.
for R-1.
Mr. Anil Kumar Chandel, Adv.
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is the first plaintiff of the civil suit (CS No.
55/2016) which was instituted in January, 2011 on the original side of
this Court where it was registered as CS (OS) 185/2011. The suit as
presented is directed against the first respondent, the reliefs claimed
being decree for possession, injunction - prohibitory and mandatory,
damages and mesne profits in respect of ground floor portion of
property described as I-30, Lajpat Nagar, III, New Delhi.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2016
passed by the Additional District Judge whereby the application of the
second respondent for impleadment in the said suit under Order 1 Rule
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed.
3. The second respondent admittedly is widow of Vasdev
Wadhwa, late brother of the petitioner, the first respondent also being
predecessor-in-interest of the original owner of the subject property
under whom the parties claim.
4. The second respondent had filed a suit on 25.02.2016 pending
in the court of Civil Judge for the reliefs of mandatory and prohibitory
injunction respecting first floor portion of the said very property, she
also seeking mesne profits, the petitioner and the other plaintiff being
defendants. The suit in which the impugned order was passed is being
contested by the first respondent by written statement along with
which she has filed counter-claim seeking relief of declaration that the
Gift Deed dated 15.09.1999 statedly executed by late Vasdev
Wadhwa, on the strength of which the petitioners claim to be the
owner of the entire property, is null and void. Noticeably, this
precisely is the case set up by the second respondent in her suit, she
being the widow of the said Vasudev Wadhwa.
5. It is against the above backdrop that the trial Court has found
the prayer for impleadment to be just and proper.
6. The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors. 2018 (1) RCR
205 to contend that the suit cannot be converted into one wherein the
right, title and interest of the second respondent qua the ground floor
portion of the property are also to be adjudicated upon, the focus of
the case of the petitioners being restricted to the ground floor portion
only.
7. The submissions of the petitioners do not appeal to this Court.
The controversy with regard to the request for impleadment of the
second respondent cannot be viewed from such narrow lense. It may
be that the petitioner is resting his case only for purpose of his right,
title and interest qua the ground floor portion of the property. But it
cannot be ignored that he relies on the Gift Deed statedly executed by
the late husband of the second respondent, its validity having been
questioned not only by the second respondent but also by the first
respondent i.e. the existing defendant. The dispute raised in the
counter-claim, particularly, would justify the impleadment inasmuch
as the finding returned as to the validity of the Gift Deed would
regulate the rights of the parties.
8. In these circumstances, the second respondent is at least a
proper party, if not a necessary party.
9. The petition is, thus, devoid of substance and is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 11, 2018
nk
