NARINDER KAUR Vs. AMAR JEET SINGH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the present case are not disputed between the parties, who are siblings of each other. The two Plaintiffs are the sisters of the Defendant No. 1. All of them being the children of late Smt. Gobind Kaur and late Lt. Col. U.S. Sethi. The dispute between them pertains to property bearing No. B-7/6, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. A Collaboration Agreement has been executed by Defendant No. 1 with Defendant No. 2 in respect of the development of this property.

(2.) The original Lease of the plot was in the name of late Smt. Gobind Kaur who expired on 16.4.1976. In his Written Statement Defendant No. 1 has staled that she left behind a Will dated 1.10.1974, but whilst this document has been mentioned in the List of Documents filed along with the Written Statement it has not been filed. The reason for this non-filing is that it is misplaced. Shri A.S. Chandhiok, Learned Senior counsel for Defendant No.1, in the course of arguments, had stated that no reliance was being placed on this Will because of its non-availability. This document will not engage my attention any further but I am constrained, however, to observe that the mystery behind this missing Will would lead me alleast to one conclusion, it is that the said Defendant intended to unfairly gain some mileage from this otherwise non-existent document.

(3.) A series of Relinquishment Deeds have been executed in this case. Their execution is admitted, but their legal efficacy and applicability is hotly contested. On 15.5.1982 Lt. Col. U.S. Sethi and Plaintiff No. 2 executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of Defendant No. 1. This deed duly recorded that the legal heirs of late Smt. Gobind Kaur were her late husband Lt. Col. H.S. Sethi and the siblings before the Court. By this Deed the Executants had relinquished their share in favour of Shri Amar Jeet Singh Sethi, Defendant No. 1. This was followed by another Relinquishment Deed dated 25.8.1984 executed.by Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 1. At this stage I would only mention the basic legal fallacy in the document is that a relinquishment perforce cannot be in favour of any particular co-sharer; if it is to operate in favour of a particular party it amounts to a transfer and must be effected either by Sale Deed or by a Gift Deed, depending entirely on whether there was any consideration for such a transfer.