KARAN NATH Vs. MINAKSHI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A.No.9189/2014 (u/ Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) and I.A.No.20883/2014 (u/O XXXIX Rule 4 CPC)

(2.) REPLY has been filed by the plaintiff contesting the application. His submission is that the application in the present form is wholly misconceived. Submission is that the consent decree inter se defendant nos.1 to 3 and defendant no.4 passed on 07.11.2007 in CS(SO) 1257/2003 is not binding upon him as he was admittedly not a party to the suit. In that judgment it had been noted that Karan Nath (plaintiff) had filed a civil suit {(CS(OS) 1630/2006} seeking a challenge to the family settlement dated 01.7.1992 (pursuant to which the decree dated 07.11.2007 had been passed) and while recording the compromise decree it had noted this submission of the plaintiff that the said compromise arrived at inter se between defendant nos.1 to 4 will not be binding upon the plaintiff. Vehement submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff being that the prayer made in the present application is even otherwise not maintainable as admittedly the plaintiff is the son of the defendant no.4 and his status has been recognized by all family members; the plaintiff is visiting his aged father being more than 85 years of age and looking after his health; the defendant nos.1 and 2 being the married daughters are living separately in their own homes; his mother (defendant no.3) is also not in a position to look after her ailing husband all by herself; the present application has been filed by the defendants with a malafide interest.

(3.) DEFENDANT no.4 i.e. Kailash Nath has also filed a reply. It was not a part of the record although it has been admittedly filed in the Registry as both the parties had copies of the same. Copy of the reply has been placed on record. In this reply the stand of defendant no.4 is that the plaintiff is admittedly his son. He has two daughters, both of whom are married and are not residing in the suit property; they are living in their separate houses. It has been reiterated that defendant no.4 (Kailash Nath) is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and is in peaceful possession of the same. A guest house is being run in the property. It is pointed out that defendant nos.1 to 3 (his wife and two daughters) have now connived against him and are in complete control of the management of the guest house and have even gone to the extent of showcasing the answering defendant as a member of the staff and have issued pay cheques to him after deducting TDS. It is pointed out that the malafide and hostile conduct of defendant nos.1 to 3 is deplorable and the answering defendant has lost complete faith in them. He has reiterated that he had written a letter to the Water and Electricity Department of the NDMC (dated 02.4.2014) stating that out of the two electricity meters which are installed in the suit property (one of which is in the name of the defendant) and second one in the name of Amar Nath (deceased father of Kailash Nath) and the second meter be transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Submission being that he is rightful owner of the suit property and has complete ownership rights in the suit property in his lifetime and is well within his right to make such a request to the Electricity Department to transfer this meter which was in the name of a dead man (his father) to his son.