Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1930 - DELHI HIGH COURTEntitlement to be declared as owners of half portions of the property - preliminary decree of partition and thereafter the final decree of partition by metes and bounds - decree of permanent injunction - concealment of material fact and document - suit is hit by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC or not - principles of res judicata - suit been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction or not? - relief of declaration qua the property, barred by limitation or not? Is the Will dated 5th December 2000 propounded by Defendant No. 1 genuine? - HELD THAT:- The language in the Will is not of an illiterate person. Merely because punctuation such as comas have not been used cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that the Will is forged and fabricated, particularly when the signatures of the deceased are not disputed and no evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to prove that blank signed documents were left by the deceased with the defendant No. 1 or his father and power of attorney executed in favour of the father of defendant No. 1 by the deceased is not disputed - Issue decided in favour of defendant No. 1 and against the plaintiffs. Have the Plaintiffs concealed any material fact and document and the effect thereof? - HELD THAT:- From the evidence led by the defendant No. 1 it is proved that the plaintiffs first sought inheritance of the properties based on a purported Will dated 22nd December, 2000 which never saw the light of the day in judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings and failing in the said attempt filed the present suit concealing about dismissal of the suit and other proceedings - Issue decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant No. 1. Is the suit hit by principles of res judicata? - HELD THAT:- The previous suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed for want of requisite Court fees and for non-prosecution. The present suit cannot be dismissed being barred by res-judicata. Thus issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No. 1. Has the suit been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? - HELD THAT:- Claim of defendant No. 1 in the written statement is that the plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs have undervalued the suit on the basis of valuation of circle rate given by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as ₹ 43,000/- per sq. mtr. However, it is the claim of the defendant No. 1 that the prevalent rate of West End properties is ₹ 5,00,000/- per sq.mtr. - Though claimed, however no evidence has been led by defendant No. 1 on this count, thus this issue is decided against defendant No. 1. Is the relief of declaration qua the property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi barred by limitation? - HELD THAT:- The present suit was instituted on 21st May, 2009. It is not denied by the plaintiffs that in the earlier suit written statement of the defendant No. 1 informed about the transfer of ownership of the property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in his favour. Thus the period of limitation as contemplated to start from the date of knowledge would be the date of filing the written statement. Thus the present suit seeking the relief of declaration of ownership of the flat No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi is beyond the period of limitation - decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant No. 1. Having held that the Will propounded by defendant No. 1 of late Rajendra Vikram Singh is a valid Will and that the relief of declaration sought in respect of property No. 501, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi being beyond the period of limitation, other issues are decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant No. 1. Suit dismissed.
|