JASBIR KUMAR Vs. KANCHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has assailed an order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the learned trial court, rejecting his suit for declaration, possession, permanent and mandatory injunction instituted against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (mother), respondent No.2/defendant No.2 (brother), respondent No.3/defendant No.3 (sister-in-law) and respondent No.4/defendant No.4 (subsequent purchaser). The said suit has been held to be barred under Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and rejected on the basis of an application filed by the respondent No.4/defendant No.4 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that Shri Himmat Singh, father of the appellant and the respondent No.2, husband of the respondent No.1 and father-in-law of the respondent No.3, was the owner of premises bearing No.7/2 and 7/3/C in RD Ram Roop Vidya Mandir Estate, Sanjay Nagar, Delhi. During his lifetime, Shri Himmat Singh had executed a registered Will dated 07.03.1980. He expired on 12.06.1999, leaving behind his widow, the respondent No.1 and two sons, the appellant and the respondent No.2 as his Class I heirs. Initially, the appellant/plaintiff had instituted a simple suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents No.1 to 3, for restraining them from transferring, selling or alienating the suit premises. When the respondents No.1 to 3 were served with the summons and had entered appearance in the suit, they filed a joint written statement taking a plea that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had executed a gift deed dated 15.06.2007 in respect of the suit premises in favour of her daughter-in-law, the respondent No.3 herein who had in turn had executed a sale deed in respect of the suit premises in favour of the respondent No.4, M/s Ashima Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

(3.) On gaining knowledge of the aforesaid turn of events, the appellant/plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the said suit while reserving his right to file a fresh suit. As a result, the present suit came to be instituted by the appellant/plaintiff, wherein he impleaded his family members as defendants No.1 to 3 and the purchaser of the suit premises as defendant No.4.