MS VEENETA Vs. MS JYOTI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, challenging the impugned order dtd. 28/11/2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) No. 392/2019, dismissing the I.A. No. 14019/2021 filed by the Appellants herein under Order XXII Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), claiming to be the legal representatives of late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta and seeking their substitution.

(2.) Late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta was the defendant no.1 in the civil suit filed by Respondent/plaintiff seeking partition, possession, rendition of accounts and ancillary reliefs qua the estate of late Sh. Parmanand Gupta. The suit properties relevant for the present appeal are:

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellants stated that Appellant No. (ii) i.e., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singhal ('SKS') is the brother of late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta. He stated that Appellant No. (ii) had purchased properties bearing no. D-114 and D-136, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi, from late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta in the year 2006 by way of the customary documents i.e., Agreement to Sell (ATS), General Power of Attorney (GPA), receipt and Will. He stated that though there is no registered sale deed in favour of Appellant No. (ii), these customary documents are sufficient to entitle the said Appellant to be impleaded as a legal representative of late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta in the suit proceedings. In this regard, he relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Manovikas Kendra Rehabilitation and Research Institute v. Prem Prakash Lodha, (2005) 7 SCC 224 (paragraph no. 2) and Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377 (paragraph nos. 4 and 5).