NEELAM SALUJA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff and against the defendant for restraining the defendant from enforcing the latters demand as per its letters dated April 14, 1986 and May 8, 1986 for payment of 50% of the unearned increase in the market value of the plot No A-63, New Friends Cooperative House Building Society. The facts giving rise to the suit are as follows:-

(2.) Diyal Singh Narag was member of a house building cooperative society known as New Friends Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Mathura Road, New Delhi. A perpetual sub-lease deed dated April 23, 1975 in respect of the said plot was executed by the President of India and the Society in favour of Shri Diyal Singh Narag. During his life time he nominated the plaintiff as his nominee in respect of his membership in the Society as also perpetual leasehold rights in the said plot. The name of the plaintiff as nominee of Diyal Singh Narag was entered into the records of the Society. Besides nominating the plaintiff as his nominee, Diyal Singh Narag executed a Will dated November 18, 1978 bequeathing the perpetual leasehold rights in the plot in question in favour of the plaintiff. Diyal Singh Narag died on October 26, 1980 leaving behind the plaintiff as the sole legatee and beneficiary of the said plot. The plaintiff informed the defendant about the devolution of perpetual sub-leasehold rights in the said plot on her on account of her being the sole legatee and beneficiary of Diyal Singh Narag in so far as the said plot is concerned. The Society to whom the plaintiff applied for entering her name as the sole perpetual sub lessee of the said plot & also as member of Society after scrutinising the documents and papers submitted by the plaintiff forwarded the same to the defendant for the mutation of the plot in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant by its letter dated August 12, 1981 informed the plaintiff that the plot in question has been mutated in her name being the nominee of the deceased Diyal Singh Narag. Thereafter, the plaintiff on receipt of this letter and on getting the plans sanctioned from the concerned authority constructed the building thereon and applied for a completion certificate vide his application dated October 6, 1983. During riots of 1984 the entire house was burnt by miscreants. The plaintiff again raised the building after taking loan from the New Bank of India for which purpose sanction was taken from the defendant. The defendant by its letter dated April 14, 1986 suspended the mutation earlier granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plot in question on the ground that the will submitted by the plaintiff for the purposes of securing the mutation tantamounts to sale. The defendant by a subsequent letter dated May 8, 1986 asked the plaintiff to pay 50% of the unearned increase in the market value of the land for the restoration of the mutation. It is this demand of the defendant which has been challenged by the plaintiff in this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the demand and the threats as contained in its letters dated April 14, 1986 and May 8, 1986.

(3.) The defendant in its written statement, inter alia, averred that the plaintiff is not the blood relation of the original sub-lessee and as such parting with possession of the plot by way of a Will will tantamount to sale of the plot and therefore the defendant was justified in suspending the mutation and claiming the unearned increase.