SUDESH CHHIKARA Vs. BALJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No. 5284/2018 (for restoration)

(2.) The suit plaint was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.40 lacs against the respondent/defendant, who is the father-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff. The suit for recovery has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff pleading that she was the owner of a property measuring 50 sq. yards bearing no. B-51/B, part of Khasra No. 9/12, situated in the area of village Matiala Delhi and this property was owned by the appellant/plaintiff as it was purchased in her name by her late husband being the son of the respondent/defendant. The husband of the appellant/plaintiff expired on 19.10.2000 and thereafter the suit property was sold on 24.2011 by the appellant/plaintiff on being pressurized by the respondent/defendant, however the entire sale consideration was not received by the appellant/plaintiff but by the respondent/defendant and to recover which the subject suit was filed.

(3.) Respondent/Defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the husband of the appellant/plaintiff was not the owner of the subject property and the subject property was purchased out of the funds of the respondent/defendant. In any case the entire sale consideration for the property bearing no.B-51/B, has been received by the appellant/plaintiff and not by the respondent/defendant. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed. It was also contended that for the sake of arguments even if the appellant/plaintiff had to file a suit then appellant/plaintiff had to file a suit within three years from 24.2.2011 when the property was sold but the subject suit was filed in November 2016 when limitation expired on 24.2.2014 and hence the suit was hence prayed to be dismissed as time-barred.