MEENA Vs. RAJ KUMAR GOEL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 30.01.2015 by which an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 23, Rule 1 Civil P.C. was partly allowed and the liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh suit with respect to the relief of permanent injunction. The court held that there can be no occasion to consider the question of granting liberty with respect to any other reliefs as no such other reliefs have been sought in the present suit.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff who is the sister of the respondents filed the present suit against her two brothers in 2010. The title of the plaint stated is as "Suit for Cancellation of Title Documents of the property no. 4660-63, Gali no. 49, at Raiger Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 5 and Permanent Injunction". It was averred that the property was owned by the father of the parties, namely, Sh. Kishan Saroop who died on 27.08.1997. It was averred that the petitioner came to know that the respondents have forged certain documents and transferred the property in their name. It was claimed that the petitioner is the owner of 1/10th share of the property.

(3.) The respondents filed their written statement pointing out that the petitioner is aware of the fact that the father had left behind a registered Will dated 21.04.1997 and that she had furnished an affidavit of no objection to the DDA for mutation of the suit property in favour of five brothers including the respondents.