MANJU VATS Vs. MEENA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court by its order dtd. 16/1/2018, while referring to the judgment of this Court in Vinod Popli v. Ragini Popli and Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8506, entertained a doubt on the maintainability of the present suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs was called upon to make submissions thereon.

(2.) Subsequently, by an order dtd. 11/10/2019, on hearing the parties, a detailed order was passed, observing that at least on the contention of the plaintiffs of there being Mutual Will(s) executed by late Smt. Sita Devi, the mother of the defendant, and late Smt. Savitri Devi, the mother of the plaintiffs, on the same date, that is, 16/4/1981, the said Will(s) prima facie would not be hit by the doctrine of pari delicto.

(3.) The learned counsel for the defendant, however, insisted that prayers (ccc) and (cccc) of the Amended Plaint would be barred by Limitation and also liable to be rejected on the doctrine of in pari delicto and, therefore, prayed that these prayers be deleted. The Court, therefore, in the order dtd. 11/10/2019, observed as under:-