JAI SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial Court dated 4.4.2016 and the first appellate Court dated 6.5.2017; by which the courts below have dismissed the suit seeking relief of injunction as premature. The suit has been dismissed as premature inasmuch as the disputes in the suit pertained to an immovable property belonging to late Smt. Jallo Devi and with respect to the estate of Smt. Jallo Devi, Smt. Saraswati Devi/respondent no.2 had obtained probate of a Will dated 12.1.1983 by which Smt. Jallo Devi had bequeathed her estate to the respondent no.2/Smt. Saraswati Devi and a petition for revocation of the probate was pending disposal before the concerned court.

(2.) The subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for injunction seeking right, title and interest in the suit property bearing plot no. 34, Sector-23B, Pocket-7, Dwarka, New Delhi and which was allotted to late Smt. Jallo Devi on account of acquiring of land belonging to her under the Land Acquisition Act. By the suit appellant/plaintiff claimed that he was the son of Smt. Roopo Devi and which Smt. Roopo Devi was the sole legal heir and child of Smt. Jallo Devi (wrongly mentioned Smt. Lajjo Devi in para 1 of the plaint) and that appellant/plaintiff has succeeded to the estate of late Smt. Jallo Devi. Effectively by the suit the respondent no.1/defendant no.1/Delhi Development Authority was sought to be restrained from allotting the suit property to the respondent no.2/defendant no.2/Smt. Saraswati Devi.

(3.) In this suit an issue arose with respect to the injunction suit simplicitor not being maintainable, and therefore, appellant/plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint for seeking the relief of declaration, and during the hearing of which an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC the suit plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC holding that the suit is premature as the respondent no.2/Smt. Saraswati Devi had obtained a probate of a Will and a revocation petition filed by the appellant/plaintiff was pending disposal i.e only when the revocation petition would be allowed the appellant/plaintiff would have a right in the suit property of Smt. Jallo Devi and hence the suit being maintainable.