SARLA AGGARWAL Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.2013 whereby the suit of the appellant was dismissed. The appellant is the mother of the respondent/defendant; she filed CS (OS) No. 1548/2007 claiming a declaration that the son i.e. the first defendant had no right to sell any undivided portion of the suit property until it was partitioned by metes and bounds or otherwise. The suit property is property No. 2, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and is jointly owned by A.P. Aggarwal & Sons HUF and Gajanand Aggarwal & Sons HUF. The entirety of the property is to an extent of 2400 sq. yards. A.P. Aggarwal & Sons HUF sold 1200 sq. yards of the suit property to second defendant by way of sale deed; the second defendant was impleaded during the pendency of proceedings. The first defendant i.e. the appellant's son and a member of Gajanand Aggarwal & Sons HUF had a share in the suit property to the extent of 350 sq. yds, which he, during the pendency of the suit, transferred to the second defendant by way of a sale deed dated 24.12.2007. As observed earlier, at the request of the plaintiff/appellant, the second defendant was impleaded in the suit on 2nd December, 2008 by an amendment. The suit was also consequently sought to be amended and a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 from parting with the possession of any portion of the suit property was sought to be added.

(2.) ON 15th October, 2012 by the first impugned order, the Court rejected the application for amendment whereby a prayer for an injunction against the defendant No.1 and a challenge to the subsequent sale by defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit was sought to be assailed. The Court took special note of the fact that the sale was made on 24th December, 2007 where as the application was filed in September, 2011.

(3.) IT is contended by counsel on behalf of the appellant that both impugned orders are perverse and unfounded inasmuch as the appellant's rights have been severely and irreparably affected and that there is every likelihood that she may be dispossessed or at least the defendant's actions may result in injury to her domain or her possessory or territorial rights over the property. It was submitted that the impugned final judgment and decree dated 8.7.2013 has in fact placed a seal upon the appellants right to challenge the sale deed by which the second defendant was sought to be inducted as co -owner in the undivided suit property.