Vinod Kumar & Anr. vs Asha Devi & Ors.
2018 Latest Caselaw 2310 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                          Reserved on : 8th February, 2018
                                          Date of decision :13th April, 2018
+                         RFA 476/2015
       VINOD KUMAR & ANR.                      ..... Appellants
                   Through: Mr. Bheem Sain Jain, Advocate (M-
                               9990669208, 9810295666).
                   versus

       ASHA DEVI & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                     Through:        Ms. Rani Mehta, Respondent. (M-
                                     9818549129).
       CORAM:
       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                           JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. Smt. Maya Devi was the lessee of property bearing no 29/3, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi measuring 100 sq. (hereinafter, „suit property‟). She was allotted this property by lease deed dated 17th April, 1967. The term of the lease is 99 years commencing from 16 th July, 1957 issued by the President of India. Smt. Maya Devi had two sons - Sh. Om Parkash and Sh. Ved Parkash; and two daughters Smt. Kamlesh Malhotra and Smt. Sumitra Sehgal.

2. The present suit is filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs (hereinafter, „Plaintiffs‟) who are the heirs of Sh. Om Parkash i.e. Sh. Vinod Kumar and Sh. Rajinder Kumar against the Respondents/Defendants (hereinafter, „Defendants‟) heirs of Sh. Ved Parkash i.e. Smt. Asha Devi w/o of Sh. Ved Prakash, Sh. Sukhdev Mehta and Ms. Rani Mehta, children of Sh. Ved Prakash.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Sh. Om Parkash had got the super structure constructed on the land allotted to his mother - Smt. Maya Devi, and that during her lifetime, front portion of the suit property consisting of 40 sq. yards was given to Sh. Om Parkash and rear portion of the property consisting of 60 sq. yards was in occupation of Sh. Ved Parkash and his family.

4. Smt. Maya Devi, on 10th April, 1985, passed away intestate. The Plaintiffs claimed that though Sh. Ved Parkash and his family was in occupation of the rear portion, upon the death of Smt. Maya Devi, the 60 sq. yards was to be equally divided between the two daughters and Sh. Ved Parkash. The two daughters of Smt. Maya Devi by a registered release deed dated 21st May, 2008 relinquished their share of 40 sq. yards out of the 60 sq. yard property in favour of the Plaintiffs and hence Sh. Ved Parkash and his family were entitled to only 20 sq. yards of the property. Since the family of Sh. Ved Parkash i.e. the Defendants did not agree to the partition of the property, the suit for partition and injunction, as also mesne profits came to be filed by the Plaintiffs. Reliefs prayed by the Plaintiffs in the suit are as under:

"a) a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property i.e. back portion of property bearing no.29/3, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, measuring about 60 sq. yards, shown bounded red in the site plan annexed with the plaint by meets and bounds as per shares between the plaintiff and defendants may kindly be passed.

b) After the preliminary decree/decree of partition of the suit property, a decree for possession in respect of 2/3 share of the

plaintiffs in the super structure and in the leasehold rights of underneath land of the above said suit property i.e. back portion of property bearing no.29/3, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, shown bounded red in the site plan annexed with the plaint may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

c) a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, attorneys representatives, servants etc. from creating third party interest in the suit property or parting with possession of the suit property may kindly be pleased.

d) Pass a decree for mesne profits/ damages/use and occupation charges @ Rs.500/- per day since the date of filing the suit till the date of possession may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

e) Cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants."

5. The Defendants, in their written statement, pleaded that the family settlement by which the Plaintiffs' family came into possession and ownership of the 40 sq. yards in front portion of the suit property, also vested in Sh. Ved Parkash the remaining 60 sq. yards in the rear portion. Thus, the Defendants' case is that the family settlement was comprehensive and since both the daughters of Smt. Maya Devi were married and settled, they had no right, title or interest in the suit property. The Defendants further submitted that the release deed dated 21st May, 2008 has no basis in law as the same has been executed 28 years after the death of Smt. Maya Devi and

the entire effort has only been to harass and spite the family of Sh. Ved Parkash. The Defendants further contended that the suit for partition is only a counterblast to an earlier suit for injunction which was filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs.

6. In the Trial Court the following issues were framed on 16th November, 2011:

"1. Whether Smt. Maya Devi during her lifetime had given front portion i.e. 40% of suit property bearing no.29/3, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi to her son Om Parkash by way of an oral family settlement in lieu of costs of construction in the entire property and the remaining 60% portion remained in her possession? If so, its effect? OPP.

2. Whether the oral family settlement took place in the year 1980 and 40% of the front portion went to the share of Late Sh. Om Parkash and 60% to the share of Ved Parkash Mehta as pleaded in the written statement? If so, its effect? OPD

3. Whether Smt. Maya Devi died intestate on 10.04.1985 and after her death her 60% portion devolved upon her two daughters, namely, Smt. Kamlesh Malhotra and Smt. Sumitra Sehgal and son Ved Parkash. If so, its effect? OPP

4. Whether after the death of Sh. Om Parkash on 29.10.2009 his 40% share was jointly inherited by his widow, daughter Smt. Rekha and his two sons i.e. the plaintiffs? If so, its effect? OPP

5. Whether after the death of Ved Parkash in 1999 his 1/3rd share i.e. 20 sq. yards in the back portion was inherited by the respondents being his legal heirs in equal shares? OPP

6. Whether the Relinquishment/Release Deed dated 21.05.2008 executed by Smt. Sumitra Sehgal and Smt. Kamlesh Malhotra, the two daughters of Smt. Maya Devi vide registered document no.12054, Book No.1, Vol. No.16045 pages 88 to 90 on 21.05.2008 is void ab-initio as pleaded in para 7 of the WS? If so, its effect? OPD

7. Whether the possession of the defendants in the 2/3rd share in the suit property is illegal and unauthorized as pleaded in the plaint? If so, its effect? OPP

8. Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action? OPD

9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs prayed for?

10. Relief."

7. A perusal of the issues shows that the core question in the present case is whether an oral family settlement took place in 1980 and if so, what were its terms. The second question would be, if there was no oral settlement, what is the share of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants i.e., the heirs of Sh. Om Parkash and Sh. Ved Parkash in the suit property.

8. The Plaintiffs led the evidence of PW-1/Sh. Vinod Kumar - one of the sons of Sh. Om Parkash and PW-2/Smt. Kamlesh Malhotra - one of the daughters of Smt. Maya Devi. The Defendants led the evidence of Ms. Rani Mehta (D3W1), daughter of Sh. Ved Prakash, and Sh. Ashok Kumar (D3W2).

9. The Trial Court, after perusing the evidence, documents and pleadings on record, dismissed the suit on 13th February 2015, in the following terms:

"23. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove issue

& 8 have gone in favour of defendants, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. Hence, suit of the plaintiff deserves dismissal. The same is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room. "

10. The findings of the Trial Court, inter alia, are as under:

a) That no document was placed on record to substantiate that Sh. Om Parkash had spent any money for construction on the property.

b) That Sh. Om Parkash did not stay in the suit property but was posted in Lucknow.

c) That 40% of the suit property was given to Sh. Om Parkash by Smt. Maya Devi.

d) That there was an oral partition between the parties by which 40% of the suit property went to the family of Sh. Om Parkash and 60% of the rear portion of the property went to the share of Sh. Ved Parkash.

e) That the two daughters of Smt. Maya Devi are not coparceners under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereafter, „HSA‟), hence they did not have any right in the suit property as Smt. Maya Devi had expired in 1985, prior to the amendment in Section 6 of HSA which came into effect in 2005.

11. The present appeal impugns the Trial Court judgment dated 13th February, 2015. In the present appeal, on 10th August, 2015, this Court had directed that parties "will maintain status quo as to the title and possession" and the said order was made absolute on 17th November, 2015, when the appeal was also admitted. Counsel for the Appellant has addressed

arguments and the Respondents are represented by Respondent no.3 who appears in person.

Submissions of Appellants/Plaintiffs

12. It is the contention of the Plaintiffs that since Smt. Maya Devi died intestate and her two daughters executed relinquishment deeds in favour of the Plaintiffs, they are entitled to 40 sq. yards out of the 60 sq. yards in the rear portion. Thus, the Plaintiffs claim that the front portion of the property already vests in their favour in view of the oral family settlement in the year 1980 and out of the rear portion they are entitled to 40 sq. yards i.e. a total of 80 sq. yards out of 100 sq. yards property. It is further submitted by the Plaintiffs that both the daughters of Smt. Maya Devi are coparceners under Section 6 of HSA.

Submissions of Respondents/Defendants

13. On the other hand, Defendant No.3- Ms. Rani Mehta, one of the daughters of Sh. Ved Parkash, who appeared in person, submitted that the death of Smt. Maya Devi took place in 1985 and the present suit for partition was instituted only in 2010. She submits that the construction on a part of the property i.e. 40 sq. yards was illegal as sub-division of the plot could not have been made. She further submits that both her aunts were married in 1957 and 1967 respectively and did not have any rights in the suit property. According to her, the MCD ought to be directed not to interfere in the Respondents' peaceful enjoyment and possession as also construction of the suit property. She further submits that her father has always been in possession of the rear portion of the property and that by way of the family settlement of 1980, the Defendants are the owners of the 60% of the rear

portion.

Analysis and findings Whether there was any oral partition of the family property in 1980?

14. There is no written document capturing the terms of the family settlement, and the Court has to therefore analyse the pleadings and evidence on record. The lease deed in favour of Smt. Maya Devi is not in dispute. PW-1 admits that 40% share of the property was given to Sh. Om Parkash. He, however, denied that the remaining 60% was given to Sh. Ved Parkash. He also admits that there was no dispute over the partition till the death of Smt. Maya Devi and even till the death of two brothers, Sh. Om Parkash and Sh. Ved Parkash. He admits that there was no document to show that his aunts ever asserted their rights in the suit property.

15. PW-2, Smt. Kamlesh Malhotra, one of the daughters of Smt. Maya Devi, initially stated that the property was not divided amongst the two sons in the ratio of 40% and 60%, but again said that the 40% was given to Sh. Om Parkash and that the remaining 60% was not divided. Her deposition is relevant and is set out hereinbelow:

"............. It is wrong to suggest that the property was divided among two sons by the mother into ratio of 40% in favour of elder son and 60% in favour of younger son Late Sh. Ved Parkash. (vol. The mother said I will see later on, I have other children also). Again said 40% was given to Om Parkash and 60% of share was not divided.

It is wrong to suggest that when this plot was allotted it was constructed. It is wrong to suggest that Om Parkash was not residing in the plot. It is correct that he was serving in

Lucknow. It is correct that he was living in Rajender Nagar. (Vol. front portion was constructed by Om Parkash and younger brother has done nothing). Om Parkash was died in 1994 and Ved Parkash died in 1999 and my mother died in 1985. I cannot say if Om Parkash has no right in 60% of the portion of the plot which was given to Late Shri Ved Parkash. It is correct that Smt. Asha Devi is of mild mind and Sukhdev is also in a petty job. Prior to that, he was not employed. It is correct that Rani is still unmarried. (Vol. I have asked her so many time to get married but she is listening to me). It is wrong to suggest that defendants have not ever mishehaved. It is wrong to suggest that I am harassing the defendants at the instance of Vinod and his wife. It is correct that Vinod‟s wife was working in police department and she is doing nothing now and she is now a housewife only. It is correct that I have not asked for any right in the property in 1995 when my mother died or my elder brother died in 1994 and even then when my younger brother Ved Parkash died in 1999.

It is correct that even after death of Ved Parkash I never raised any question of my right in the property. I have executed the alleged deed when later on I was not allowed to come in the house and I was insulted by Rani. .......................

I cannot say what construction was raised by Om Parkash."

She also admitted that she had no proof to show that Sh. Om Parkash had constructed any structure in the suit property.

16. D3W1 - Ms. Rani Mehta stated that an oral family settlement took

place in 1980. She admitted that Sh. Om Parkash carried out construction in 1980 and 1983 in the front portion of the 40 sq. yards area of the suit property. She stated that Sh. Om Parkash used to reside in Lucknow. Sh. Ved Parkash was employed as a beldar-daily worker in the MCD. She also stated in her affidavit that her father had carried out some renovation work in the rear portion of 60 sq. yards of the property and that Smt. Maya Devi used to reside with her father.

17. D3W2 - Sh. Ashok Kumar was a colleague of Sh. Ved Parkash in the MCD. He stated that he visited Sh. Ved Parkash's home when he was working with the MCD and that there was a wall between the portions of the Defendants and Plaintiffs. He categorically stated in his affidavit as under:

".......During the life time of Shri Ved Parkash I have visited many times his house and came to know that the house belongs to Shri Ved Parkash and saw his family residing there.

4. That many times I alongwith other colleague late Shri Ved Parkash got carried out the repairs of the house in our supervision.

5. That in rear portion comprising of two rooms, kitchen and bath room is in possession and ownership of the defendant and front side 40 sq. yards constructed upto 4th storey is in possession of the wife of elder brother of late Shri. Ved Parkash (Plaintiff).

6. That I have come to know while visiting the house that no sister of late Sh. Ved Parkash was residing there. We persons from the office were always helping Ms. Rani Mehta and the home of the defendant is towards the gali.

7. That late Sh. Ved Parkash is survived with his wife daughter Rani Mehta and son Shri Sukh Dev. The mother of Ms. Rani Mehta and Sh. Sukhdev is remained ill after the death of

late Sh. Ved Parkash."

18. In his cross-examination, he stated as under:

"I know the family of Mr. Ved Parkash. It is correct that I was having visiting terms with the family of Mr. Ved Parkash.

..................

The suit property belonged to the mother of late Shri Ved Parkash. Late Shri Ved Parkash used to get the repairs done in the portion he was living on his own. I used to go alone at the house of late Shri Ved Parkash.

...................

The suit property consists one room, kitchen, laterin-bathroom, store and some vacant portion when I visited their house. I used to enter from the front gate and used to go from the back gate and there was no wall in between."

19. A perusal of the evidence on record establishes the following facts unequivocally:

a) That the family of Sh. Om Parkash resided in the front portion of the suit property and had carried out construction in the 40 sq. yards area.

b) That family of Sh. Ved Parkash resided in the rear portion of the property consisting of 60 sq. yards.

c) That two daughters did not claim any rights so long as their mother was alive.

d) That the two daughters also did not claim any rights from either of their brothers while they were alive.

e) That the relinquishment deed appears to have been executed due to the misbehaviour of the Defendant No.3 with her aunt, as admitted by

PW2 in her cross examination.

f) That the D3W2, who was a colleague of Sh. Ved Parkash, who used to visit the suit property, confirms that Sh. Ved Parkash used to get renovation/repair work done in his portion of the property.

20. All this goes to show that during the lifetime of the mother there was an oral family settlement between the parties and the front portion consisting of 40 sq. yards of the property was given to the family of Sh. Om Parkash and the rear portion of 60 sq. yards was given to other son Sh. Ved Parkash. Both the daughters of Smt. Maya Devi had acquiesced to this position and had not claimed any rights in their mother's property during her lifetime or even during the lifetime of the brothers. Thus, the family settlement had not only taken place, but had also been acted upon by all the heirs of Smt. Maya Devi, both in intent and in conduct.

21. The stand of the Plaintiffs that the oral family settlement merely vested the 40 sq. yards property in favour of Sh. Om Parkash and not the remaining 60 sq. yards in favour of Sh. Ved Parkash, seems to be a clear case of double-speak. While the Plaintiffs rely on the oral family settlement to safeguard their own 40 sq. yards share, they seem to approbate and reprobate by, in the same breath, arguing that the remaining 60 sq. yards was to be divided among the legal heirs of Smt. Maya Devi. If this position is correct, then the Plaintiffs ought to have been claiming rights even in the rear portion of 60 sq. yards meaning thereby the Defendants would then be entitled, as per the Plaintiffs, only to 15% i.e. 15 sq. yards of the property. The pleaded case of the Plaintiffs is, however, that the Defendants are entitled to 20 sq. yards i.e. 1/3rd share in the suit property. The oral family settlement, therefore, is being interpreted by the Plaintiffs as an arrangement

by which Sh. Om Parkash was not only vested with 40 sq. yards but was also divested of his rights from the 60 sq. yards. If this is so, the oral family settlement is not correctly pleaded by the Plaintiffs, and thus, no credence can be given to the oral settlement as contended by the Plaintiffs. The oral family settlement is being twisted by the Plaintiffs for their convenience.

22. The Defendants' stand in the written statement to the following effect has greater credibility:

"2. That the built up property bearing municipal no.29/3, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018, measuring 100 sq. yards (here in after referred to as "larger property") has already been partitioned by metes and bounds long back in the year 1980 by way of oral family settlement, thereby 40% of the larger property towards front portion (road side) has gone to the share of father of plaintiffs, Late Sh. Om Parkash Mehta and the 60% of the larger property towards gali side i.e. back portion has gone to the share of husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendant no.2 and 3, Late Sh. Ved Parkash Mehta. As such there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff for filing this suit and the plaint is liable for rejection on this ground alone."

The Defendants' above stand has also been independently corroborated by Mr. Ashok Kumar and in fact, even by PW-2 Smt. Kamlesh Malhotra. PW-2 has clearly deposed that "I have executed the alleged deed when later on I was not allowed to come in the house and I was insulted by Rani." She also deposed that there is nothing to show that Sh.Om Parkash spent any money on the construction of the property and that he also did not continuously

reside in the suit property. Thus, it is the admitted position that there was no proof, whatsoever, to show that Sh. Om Parkash spent any money on the construction of the property and he also did not reside continuously in the suit property. On the other hand, Sh. Ved Parkash and his family resided in the rear portion of the 60 sq. yards, carried out renovation/repair work and continued to be in possession thereof. Thus, the oral family settlement as pleaded by the Defendants is clearly established.

23. Once the oral family settlement is established, this Court need not to examine the question of Section 6 of HSA. If the oral family settlement was not established by the parties, then the two daughters of Smt. Maya Devi would have to be treated as coparceners in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine SC 63 wherein the Supreme Court held as under:

"24. Section 6, as amended, stipulates that on and from the commencement of the amended Act, 2005, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. It is apparent that the status conferred upon sons under the old section and the old Hindu Law was to treat them as coparceners since birth. The amended provision now statutorily recognizes the rights of coparceners of daughters as well since birth. The section uses the words in the same manner as the son. It should therefore be apparent that both the sons and the daughters of a coparcener have been conferred the right of becoming coparceners by birth. It is the very factum of birth in a coparcenary that creates the coparcenary, therefore the sons and daughters of a coparcener become coparceners by virtue of birth. Devolution of coparcenary property is the later stage of and a consequence of death of a coparcener. The first stage of a coparcenary is obviously its creation as

explained above, and as is well recognized. One of the incidents of coparcenary is the right of a coparcener to seek a severance of status. Hence, the rights of coparceners emanate and flow from birth (now including daughters) as is evident from sub-s (1)(a) and (b).

25. Reference to the decision of this Court, in the case of State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram7 in essential to understand the incidents of coparceneryship as was always inherited in a Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary:

"According to the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law all the property of a Hindu joint family is held in collective ownership by all the coparceners in a quasi-corporate capacity. The textual authority of the Mitakshara lays down in express terms that the joint family property is held in trust for the joint family members then living and thereafter to be born (See Mitakshara, Ch. I. 1-27). The incidents of coparcenership under the Mitakshara law are: first, the lineal male descendants of a person up to the third generation, acquire on birth ownership in the ancestral properties is common; secondly, that such descendants can at any time work out their rights by asking for partition; thirdly, that till partition each member has got ownership extending over the entire property, conjointly with the rest; fourthly, that as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of the properties is common; fifthly, that no alienation of the property is possible unless it be for necessity, without the concurrence of the coparceners, and sixthly, that the interest of a deceased member lapses on his death to the survivors."

26. Hence, it is clear that the right to partition has not been abrogated. The right is inherent and can be availed of by any coparcener, now even a daughter

who is a coparcener."

24. Thus, on this issue the Trial Court's view is not sustainable. However, the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court that there was an oral family settlement is established and borne out from the evidence. It is also borne out from the record and evidence that both the daughters of Smt. Maya Devi had agreed to the position that they would have no rights to the suit property. In fact, the long gap in the execution of the relinquishment deed in favour of the Plaintiffs itself shows that for more than 5 decades, no rights had been claimed by the said two daughters. As per the dictum of the Supreme Court in Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. (1976)3 SCC 119, an oral family settlement is binding on all the parties. The Supreme Court observed as under:

"10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions:

(1) The family settlement must be a bonafide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family; (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; (3) The family arrangement may even be oral in which case no registration is necessary; (4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the

court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable;

(5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same; (6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement.

..................

44....... The High Court further erred in law in not giving effect to the doctrine of estoppel which is always applied whenever any party to the valid family settlement tries to assail it. The High Court further erred in not considering the fact that even if the family arrangement was not registered it could be used for a collateral purpose, namely, for the purpose of showing the nature and character of possession of the parties in pursuance of the family settlement and also for the purpose of applying the rule of estoppel which flowed from the conduct of the parties who have taken benefit under the settlement keep their mouths shut for full seven years and later try to resile from the settlement....."

25. Even this Court in Bhagwan Krishna Gupta v. Prabha Gupta ILR (2008) 2 Del 79 has taken a view that a "family settlement can be oral and need not be in writing. An oral family settlement is binding on the parties and need not be registered." Thus, oral family settlements are recognised in law and are binding on the members of the family.

26. The Trial Court's judgment does not warrant any interference on the conclusion. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to partition of the back portion of the property measuring 60 sq. yards. The Defendants are declared as the owners of the rear portion of the property measuring 60 sq. yards of the property and are entitled to enjoyment, use and occupation of the suit property without any interference whatsoever. Copy of this judgment be sent to the municipal authorities to ensure that no harassment is caused to the Defendants in their enjoyment, use, occupation and construction in the rear portion of 60 sq. yards of the property. This direction to the municipal authorities is being passed in the unusual circumstances of this case wherein the Defendant No.1 i.e. Smt. Asha Devi, widow of Sh. Ved Parkash is not mentally sound and Defendant No.2 Shri Sukhdev Mehta, son of Sh. Ved Parkash does not keep in good health, and Defendant No.3 Ms. Rani Mehta, daughter of Ved Parkash, is a single lady who is taking care of her family.

27. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim order stands vacated.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

JUDGE APRIL 13, 2018/dk