Veena Verma & Anr v. Parul Verma & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 01, 2018 pk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 1st August, 2018. + RSA 402/2014, CM No.21298/2014 (for stay) VEENA VERMA & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr.J.K. Sharma, Mr.Ajit Singh, Advs. Versus PARUL VERMA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Alka Ahir, Adv. for R1 & R2 Ms.Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa, Adv. for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC impugns the judgment and decree [dated 2nd August, 2014 in RCA No.6/2013 of the Court of Additional District Judge-03, North West] allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the two respondents against the judgment and decree [dated 26th October, 2013 in CS No.284/10/02 (Unique ID No. 02401C0478552003) of the Court of Civil Judge-06, Central] allowing the suit filed by the appellant no.1/plaintiff for: declaration that the relinquishment deed dated 20th November, 1984 registered as document No.4076 at pages 106 and 107 in additional book No.1 was null and void as the same had been obtained by playing fraud and deception on the appellant no.1/plaintiff; direction to the DDA to not mutate the property No.205, Block AG, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi in the name of the respondents/ defendants; (iii) partition of the aforesaid property; and (iv) permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from dealing with the property. 2. This Second Appeal came up first before this Court on 24th December, 2014 and was adjourned to 3rd February, 2015, when the Trial Court record was requisitioned. The appeal was thereafter adjourned from time to time. The counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2/defendants has been appearing on caveat. Vide order dated 19th May, 2016, the substantial questions of law, as proposed in the memorandum of appeal, were framed as follows: "(i) Whether the First Appellate Court, while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court has passed a verdict which is not based on a proper reading of the evidence of PW1 who is none else but appellant No.1 in this case? Whether the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is not based on valid reading and correct appraisal of the evidence furnished before it and whether the same has led to any perversity?" 3. On 27th October, 2016, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, certain compromise proposals were discussed and vide subsequent order dated 17th January, 2017, the parties referred to Mediation Cell of this Court. Mediation remained unsuccessful. 4. The counsel for the appellants has been heard and the Suit Court record requisitioned, perused. 5. The appellant no.1 / plaintiff instituted the suit aforesaid inter alia pleading: that the house aforesaid belonged to the father of the appellant / plaintiff who died in March, 1984 leaving the appellant no.1/plaintiff, appellant no.2 / defendant no.3 and the predecessor of the respondents / defendants no.1 and 2 as his daughters and son respectively and a widow i.e. the mother of the appellants/plaintiffs; that the mother of the appellants/plaintiffs died in October, 1984; (iii) that the predecessor of the respondents, being the brother of the appellants, in November, 1984, got some papers executed from the appellant no.1 and the appellant no.2, claiming the same to be for the purposes of mutation of the property in the name of himself and the two appellants; (iv) that the brother of the appellants died in 2001 leaving the respondents as his widow and son respectively; (v) that the appellant no.1/plaintiff is unmarried and residing in the house with the brother's family; (vi) that the respondents, prior to the institution of the suit, applied for mutation of the property from the name of the brother of the appellants to their own name and on receipt of a letter in this regard, the appellant no.1 / plaintiff realized that the predecessor of the respondents, exercising undue influence and fraud, had got the appellant no.1/plaintiff and the appellant no.2 to execute