- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 29 March 2019
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
- Case no.
- CS(OS) 175/2019
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MARCH 29, 2019/"pp" (corrected & released on 5th April, 2019)
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 29th March, 2019. + CS(OS) No.175/2019 & IA No. 4616/2019 (u/s 151 CPC) MAHENDER KEHAR .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, Adv. Versus SKYLAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against (i) Skyland Builders Pvt. Ltd; (ii) Lalit Mohan Madhan; (iii) Prateek Madhan; (iv) Sunil Kumar; and, (v) Sunrise Constructions, pleading that:- (i) the father of the plaintiff late Shri Desh Raj Kehar, during his lifetime had purchased and acquired a plot of land ad measuring 1083 sq. yds. bearing Municipal No.D-8, New Delhi South Extension (NDSE), Part-II, New Delhi vide Sale Deed dated 16th February, 1957; (ii) the said Shri Desh Raj Kehar died on 12th April, 1967 leaving behind his wife Smt. Durga Devi Kehar and three sons including the plaintiff and four daughters; (iii) Shri Desh Raj Kehar had executed a Will dated 7th July, 1966 creating life interest in the aforesaid property in favour of his wife Smt. Durga Devi Kehar for her lifetime and thereafter the property was to devolve on all his children; (iv) one of the sons of Shri Desh Raj Kehar died in July, 1972; he was unmarried and issueless; (v) the wife of Shri Desh Raj Kehar i.e. mother of the plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney in respect of the aforesaid property in favour of one of her daughters and who, acting thereunder sold a part of the land ad measuring 327 sq. yds. out of the total land ad measuring 1083 sq. yds. to Vidhata Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.; (vi) the mother of the plaintiff died on 3rd March, 1993 leaving a Will dated 4th February, 1993 bequeathing the property aforesaid exclusively in favour of the plaintiff; (vii) relying upon the Will aforesaid of his mother, the plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 27th August, 1999 with one Virender Bhatnagar; (viii) in the year 2004, disputes arose between the plaintiff and his siblings with respect to the said property and the said disputes were resolved and a settlement was arrived at whereunder it was agreed that the plaintiff and each of his four surviving siblings namely (a) Dr. Prem Chand Kehar; (b) Ms. Swarn Kehar Kapur; (c) Dr. Ms. Ajit Murti; and, (d) Ms. Veena Wahi would be entitled to 1/5th undivided share in the property and a Declaration-cum-Undertaking dated 4th May, 2004 was executed; (ix) on 22nd February, 2006, a joint application was also filed by the plaintiff and his four siblings aforesaid, for mutation of the property in their joint names and in the year 2006 itself the property so stood mutated; (x) Dr. Ms. Ajit Murti, sister of the plaintiff, Dr. Prem Chand Kehar, brother of the plaintiff and the heirs of Ms. Swarn Kehar Kapur, sister of the plaintiff, vide Sale Deeds dated 28th April, 2006, 28th April, 2006 and 25th May, 2006 respectively sold their respective 1/5th share in the property to defendant no.4 Sunil Kumar; (xi) Smt. Veena Wahi, sister of the plaintiff, on 18th September, 2007 executed an Agreement to Sell with respect to her 1/5th share in favour of defendant no.5 Sunrise Constructions, of which defendant no.4 is one of the partners; (xii) defendant no.5 Sunrise Constructions filed CS(OS) No.154/2008 for specific performance of the said Agreement to Sell against the said Smt. Veena Wahi and which suit was decreed on 12th May, 2009 and RFA(OS) No.63/2009 against the said judgment and decree was also disposed of and a Sale Deed executed by Smt. Veena Wahi in favour of defendant no.5 Sunrise Constructions; (xiii) M/s. AKN Developers Pvt. Ltd., claiming to be the nominee of Virender Bhatnagar aforesaid, filed CS(OS) No.1181/2005 for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 27th August, 1999 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the said Virender Bhatnagar; the plaintiff contested the said suit, contending that though the plaintiff had entered into the Agreement to Sell as sole own
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.