PUNIT BERIWALA Vs. DEEPAK KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant herein i.e. Shri Punit Beriwala who was arrayed as the defendant no.3 in Suit No.17/2016 before the learned Civil Judge in a suit filed by the plaintiffs thereof, Raj Kumar Kapoor and others against the Sarvapriya Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. arrayed as the defendant no.1 with the DDA arrayed as the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff nos. 1 to 5 namely Shri Raj Kumar Kapoor, Shri Maharaj Kumar Kapoor, Shri Sanjay Kapoor, Shri Subhash Chopra Through Attorney Shri Sukhdev Raj Vohra, Shrimati Shakuntla Bhandari and defendant nos. 4 to 8 namely Shri Ram Kumar Kapoor, Shri Krishna Kumar Kapoor, Shrimati Vimal Kapoor, Miss Pranav Kapoor, Shrimati Rashmi Nagrath being the legal heirs of late Shrimati Dhan Devi Kapoor, a member of defendant no.1 i.e. the Sarvapriya Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. who had been allotted a plot No.10/11 measuring 290 square yards in the land leased out to her by the defendant no.2 i.e. the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Cooperative Societies Cell Vikas Sadan, I.N.A Market, New Delhi for which she had paid through her lifetime the full consideration of Rs.19,497 at the rate of Rs.65 per square yards i.e. at the rate of which the plot had been allotted to her in the first instance.

(2.) The said suit no.17/2016 had been filed by the plaintiff nos. 1 to 5 seeking a declaration to the effect that Shrimati Dhan Devi Kapoor was the rightful owner and allottee of Plot No. 10/11 in village Serai Shah Ji, now known as Sarva Priya Vihar, New Delhi, and after her demise on 12.04.1980, the plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and the defendants No. 4 to 8 being her heirs and legal representatives were entitled to be substituted in her place in the records of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and sought that a sub-lease executed and registered in the name of defendant No. 3 by the defendant No. 1 was illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and the defendants No. 4 to 8. A further prayer was made by the plaintiffs to the effect that a mandatory injunction be issued to the defendant nos.l and 2, ordering them to get executed and registered the sub-lease of the plot in question in favour of the Plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and defendants No. 4 to 8 in the ratio of 1/7th each to the Plaintiffs No. 1,2,4 and 5 and the defendants No. 4 and 5 and one seventh collectively in the name of defendants No. 6 to 8 and Plaintiff No. 3, against the payment of the balance sum of Rs.7823.00. A further prayer was made by the plaintiffs to the effect that a permanent injunction be also issued restraining the defendants nos.1 to 3 from in any manner interfering or claiming any right in the Plot in question.

(3.) As per the facts brought forth through the record and also reproduced in the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2018 of the learned ADJ, South in the first appeal bearing RCA No.62/2017 that had been filed by the appellant Deepak Kapoor son of Raj Kapoor against the order dated 19.02.2017 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge whereby the Civil Suit No.17/2016 seeking the declaration and injunction aforementioned in para 2 hereinabove had been rejected by the Trial Court observing to the effect that that suit touched the business of the Co-operative Society i.e. the defendant no.1 arrayed to that suit and in view of Section 60 & 93of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred and thus, the suit could not be tried by the Civil Court.