LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-469

GULAB CHAUDHARY Vs. GOVINDER SINGH DAHIYA

Decided On February 28, 2012
Gulab Chaudhary Appellant
V/S
Govinder Singh Dahiya Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.1.2010 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff/sister for declaration, possession and injunction with respect to the property of the father, late Sh. Bhagwan Singh.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff in the plaint pleaded that she was the daughter of late Sh. Bhagwan Singh and was entitled to one-fourth share in the suit property bearing no. 6301/1A(2), Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The appellant/plaintiff/sister also prayed for possession of the suit property to the extent of her one-fourth share. Direction was also sought against the defendant no.2/respondent no.2/Municipal Corporation of Delhi to mutate one-fourth share of the property in the name of the appellant/plaintiff, and injunction was prayed for restraining the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 from transferring etc the suit property. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that the father-Bhagwan Singh died on 25.11.1987 leaving behind, besides the appellant/plaintiff-the daughter and the defendant no.1-son, two other daughters namely, Smt. Daya and Smt. Kamla. It was pleaded in the plaint that in 1987, in around the time of death of her father the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 told her of a Will executed in his name by the father. It is pleaded that till 2006, i.e. for 19 years, the appellant/plaintiff took no action because she only came to know in May, 2006 that the Will was a manipulation done by the defendant no.1/respondent no.1. The appellant/plaintiff claimed to have sent the legal notice dated 3.5.2006 and thereafter in the absence of response filed the subject suit.

(3.) The respondent no.1/defendant no.1contested the suit on two basic grounds. The first was that the suit was barred by limitation and the second was that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 became the owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered Will dated 20.9.1986 executed by the father, and which was registered with the sub-Registrar at Sonepat, Haryana on 29.9.1986.