MMTC LTD Vs. RAJ RANI GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2009 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ) (Central District), Delhi in suit No.182/2009 filed by the deceased respondent No.1 / plaintiff against the appellant and against the respondents No.2 to 4 viz. Sh. L.C. Madan, Smt. Veena Chanana & Smt. Shashi Madan and thereby declaring as null and void the Mortgage Deed and No Objection Certificate (NOC) allegedly executed by the deceased respondent No.1 / plaintiff pertaining to property No. M-1/3C, Model Town-III, Delhi in favour of the appellant and directing the appellant to return the original sale deed of the said property in favour of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff to the respondent No.1 / plaintiff.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued. The counsel for the appellant / defendant today informs that the original sale deedwas filed by the appellant / defendant No.1 in the suit file and pursuant to the judgment / decree and before the filing of this appeal, the legal heirs of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff took the delivery thereof from the Court file; in the circumstances, vide ex parte ad-interim order dated 26.03.2010, the respondents were restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property. The respondent / defendant No.2 Sh. L.C. Madan died during the pendency of the suit and vide order dated 24.01.2011, his legal heirs were substituted. The appeal was on 29.09.2011 admitted for hearing and the ex parte ad-interim order dated 26.03.2010 confirmed. The hearing of the appeal was expedited on the application of the respondents on the ground that some of the respondents were senior citizens. The counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased respondents / defendant No.2 Sh. L.C. Madan have been heard. The arguing counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1 / plaintiff has not appeared and the counsel who has been sent has no knowledge of the case. However, since the appeal is being shown in the list of regular matters of this Court, it is not deemed expedient to await the counsel for the deceased respondent No.1 / plaintiff and the records have been perused.

(3.) The deceased respondent No.1 / plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading: