EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AND CABLES LTD Vs. KIRAN SUNEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2007 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 4.5.2005. Vide judgment and decree dated 4.5.2005, the suit of the Plaintiff Kiran Suneja seeking possession and recovery of rent/mesne profits had been dismissed.

(2.) This is a second appeal. It is yet to be admitted. On behalf of the Appellant it has been urged that substantial questions of law have arisen which are embodied on page 1 of the appeal. They have been termed as 'question of law'. Nevertheless, in view of the oral submission made by learned Counsel for the Appellant they have been argued as substantial questions of law. It has been urged that the judgment Suchitra Pradhan and Ors. v. U.P. Twiga Fibreglass Ltd. and Ors, 2001 5 AD(Del) 291 has illegally been ignored in the impugned judgment; it was a binding precedent and could not have been overlooked. Perusal of this judgment and the finding in the impugned judgment qua this proposition has been dealt with in paras 16, 17, 25 & 26 of the impugned judgment. The first appellate court had depreciated the oral and documentary evidence led before the trial judge. It had recorded that prior to the present suit which had been filed by Kiran Suneja, she has also filed a suit for recovery of rent against the Defendant which suit had been decreed; Defendant had not taken any plea that KiranSuneja is a joint owner with Santosh Suneja or that the suit filed by Kiran Sunejaalone was not maintainable. In the course of trial before the trial judgeEx.PW1/DX1 had been proved. This was a letter dated 26.2.1986 written by KiranSuneja and Santosh Suneja to the builder of S.K. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. stating that the suit flat will henceforth be exclusively in the name of Kiran Suneja and Santosh Suneja has no interest left in the said flat. Endorsement at the bottom of the said document was confirmed by the builder. PW-1 had not raised any query on this document. However, a court observation had been recorded. Observation was that whether this document creates or extinguishes any right in favour of any person would be considered at the time of final arguments and parties were permitted to argue this at the said time. Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently urged that Ex.PW-1/DX1 which was an relinquishment deed by Santosh Suneja in favour of Kiran Suneja was necessarily required to be registered as it created a transferor interest in immovable property. This document could not have been read in evidence. If this document is not read in evidence, the judgment of Suchitra Pradhan (supra) would be directly applicable and a suit filed by one co-owner without joining the other would not be maintainable.

(3.) This argument of learned Counsel for the Appellant is without any merit.