MALVINDER SINGH Vs. GOVIND BALLABH BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 27.03.2018 in CS No.10830/2016, whereby the ADJ-06, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi allowed the application of the plaintiffs [respondents herein] under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"] for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The respondents/plaintiffs in the suit are the descendants of one Khyali Ram Bhagat, plaintiff No.1 being his son [Govind Ballabh Bhagat], and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 being the legal heirs of his predeceased son [Late Lalit Mohan Bhagat]. The respondents herein filed the suit on 22.12.2014 in respect of a property bearing No. 572/2, Masjid Road, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014.

(3.) The claim in the plaint was that the plaintiffs/respondents were the descendants of Late Khyali Ram Bhagat and Late Kamla Sharma and that the plaintiff No.1 and his brother [late Lalit Mohan Bhagat] were born out of the wedlock between these two persons. It is alleged that Kamla Sharma had two sisters, namely, Vimla Sharma and Sarla Sharma. They were the daughters of one Ram Karan Das. The claim in the suit was that the suit property had been inherited by the three sisters from their father, and that the plaintiffs/respodnents were their only remaining legal heirs, as the two sisters of Kamla Sharma [Vimla Sharma & Sarla Sharma] died issueless and without leaving any legal heirs. It was further averred that the two sisters of Kamla Sharma had executed a general power of attorney in her favor, in respect of the suit property, on 26.06.1995. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the defendants [petitioners herein] have illegally claimed to be the owners of the suit property under a purported sale deed dated 16.05.2013, allegedly executed by Sarla Sharma in their favour. Consequently, the plaintiffs/respondents have claimed a declaration that the sale deed dated 16.05.2013 is null and void, and possession as well as occupation charges in respect of the part of the suit property, said to be in the possession of defendant no 3 [petitioner No.3 herein].