LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-508

DEVENDER KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. YOGESH CHANDER BHARDWAJ

Decided On September 26, 2013
Devender Kumar Bhardwaj Appellant
V/S
Yogesh Chander Bhardwaj Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against an order dated

(2.) 04.2013 whereby CS (OS) 584/2013 was dismissed on the first hearing. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that no triable cause of action is disclosed on an overall reading of the plaint. The respondents are present; they agreed that the appeal be heard finally. 2. The facts appearing on the record ­ on a reading of the plaint, materials and the documents annexed with the plaint, are that a family arrangement was arrived at on 18.02.2007; it was reduced in writing in the form of Memorandum of Understanding or Family Settlement. In terms of the said Family Settlement, inter alia, the plaintiff and the first defendant ­ who are brothers, were entitled to a plot in Saket, amongst other family properties. The other parties /signatories to the family arrangement were Defendant Nos. 2 to 4/ sisters, who are arrayed as respondents in this case. The first defendant in the suit is arrayed as the first respondent in the present appeal. He too is represented. The suit further averred that on 15.10.2007, the first defendant misrepresented about the true nature of the documents and managed to secure the plaintiff's signatures on what turned out to be a Relinquishment Deed and that a copy of the said Relinquishment Deed was placed on the file of the suit which sought/claimed a decree for declaration that the Relinquishment Deed was not binding and that it was null and void. A direction for cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed was sought. The other reliefs, such as declaration, partition and permanent injunction too were sought. The averments in the suit had indicated that a previous proceedings had been filed before the learned Civil Judge as Suit No. 526/2008; apparently it was preceded by a Public Notice in the newspaper on 08.06.2008 itself claiming that the Relinquishment Deed was not binding and stating that the plaintiff/appellant continued to be part - owner of the suit property. Apparently, the suit had to be withdrawn; the suit had proceeded to an advance stage and even issues had been framed when the Court formed the opinion that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, the plaintiff had to withdraw the suit and file it in this Court. In these circumstances, CS (OS) 584/2013 was presented and entertained on the file of this Court.

(3.) THIS Court has considered the materials. It is evident that the plaintiff had taken steps even prior to the filing of the suit in 2008. As early as on 25.06.2008, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had been informed about the newspaper advertisement dated 08.06.2008 contending that the appellant was the true owner of the property along with the first defendant. Close on its heels was the suit filed before the Civil Judge, being Suit No. 526/2008. The parties were served with summons; they even entered defence. Apparently, the first defendant did not dispute the family arrangement dated 18.02.2007, though he tried to justify the legality of the Relinquishment Deed impugned in the suit, stating that the said document was executed voluntarily. After issues were framed, the Court formed an opinion that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed. Consequently, the plaint had to be withdrawn and it was refiled. The suit leading to the impugned order in the present case, i.e. CS (OS) 584/2013 ­ besides para 5 also contains the following averments: