Amarjeet Singh @ Rinku v. Surjeet Singh & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J FEBRUARY 24, 2016 "gsr"

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24th February, 2016 + RFA 673/2014 AMARJEET SINGH @ RINKU ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pushpender Shukla, Adv. Versus SURJEET SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. G.S. Suri, Adv. 1&3. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for R- 4/NrDMC. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2014 of the Court of Sh. Devender Kumar Jangala, Additional District Judge (ADJ) West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi of dismissal of civil suit (No.414/2014 filed by the appellant for partition of property No.2264-A (Left Side), Mandir Wali Gali, Shadi Khampur, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi and for declaration that the documents of transfer / sale of the said property executed by the respondent / defendant no.1 in favour of the respondent / defendant no.3 Sh. Onkar Singh are null and void and for injunction restraining the respondent / defendant no.4 from dealing with the said property) consequent to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) of the plaint on the ground of the claim therein being barred by Section 11 and Order XXIII Rue 1 of the CPC. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. The counsels for the respondents no.1 to 3 and respondent no.4 North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NrDMC) appear. 3. Admit. 4. Considering the fact that if the appeal was to be allowed the suit will have to proceed, the appeal with the consent of the counsels is taken up for hearing at this stage only. 5. The appellant instituted the suit from which this appeal arises pleading: (i) that the entire property No. 2264-A, Mandir Wali Gali, Shadi Khampur, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi, admeasuring 142 sq. yds. was purchased by his grandfather Sh. Harnam Singh in the year 1957; (ii) that Sh. Harnam Singh died intestate on 23rd May, 1976 leaving the father of the appellant / plaintiff i.e. the respondent / defendant no.1 and two other sons as his only legal heirs; (iii) that one of the other sons of Sh. Harnam Singh relinquished his share in favour of the father of the appellant / plaintiff and the other brother, making them equal owners of the property; (iv) that the father of the appellant / plaintiff i.e. the respondent / defendant no.1 herein and his said brother divided the property between themselves and thus the respondent / defendant no.1 became the owner of left side ad-measuring 71 sq. yds. of the property; (v) that the said left side property having been inherited by the father of the appellant / plaintiff from his own father is ancestral property and the appellant / plaintiff was also residing therein; (vi) however the respondent / defendant no.1 and the respondent / defendant no.2 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur being the mother of the appellant / plaintiff by deceit made the appellant / plaintiff leave the said property on the pretext of carrying out repairs therein; (vii) that the appellant / plaintiff upon learning that his parents i.e. the respondents / defendants no.1&2 were intending to sell the property, filed a suit for partition and possession and in the written statement whereto the respondents / defendants no.1&2 informed of having sold the property to the respondent / defendant no.3 Mr. Onkar Singh; (viii) that an oral compromise was arrived at between the appellant / plaintiff on the one hand and the respondents / defendants no.1&2 on the other hand and owing whereto the appellant / plaintiff withdrew the suit; (ix) that however since the respondents / defendants no.1&2 did not abide by the compromise, the appellant / plaintiff filed the suit from which this appeal arises. 6. The respondents / defendants no.1 to 3 applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of the same being barred by Section 11 of the CPC for the reason of the appellant / plaintiff having withdrawn the suit earlie