LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-244

MAYA DEVI Vs. MAHESH KUMAR

Decided On October 23, 2019
MAYA DEVI Appellant
V/S
MAHESH KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ia No.14874/2019 (of the plaintiff for declaring the settlement dated 27th January, 2014 as void and for restoration of the suit) and IA No.14875/2019 (of the plaintiff for condonation of 365 days delay in applying therefor)

(2.) The applicant / plaintiff instituted this suit, for (i) cancellation of Gift Deed dated 17th May, 2008 in respect of property bearing No.E-1/82, Second Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi executed by the applicant / plaintiff in favour of defendants no.1 and 2; (ii) declaration of the applicant / plaintiff as owner of the said property; and, (iii) restraining the defendants no.1 and 2 from dealing with the property.

(3.) It was the case of the applicant / plaintiff in the plaint, that (i) the applicant / plaintiff is an illiterate lady and does not know English language; (ii) the defendant no.1 is the son of the applicant / plaintiff and the defendant no.2 is the wife of the defendant no.1; the defendants no.3 and 4 are the mother and brother respectively of defendant no.2; (iii) the defendants no.1 and 2 were contemplating to go abroad and for the purpose of getting visa were required to show themselves as owner of some property to the Visa Authority; (iv) the applicant / plaintiff, with the permission and consent of her son and daughters, agreed to help the defendants no.1 and 2; (v) the defendants no.1 and 2 along with the plaintiff went to the deed writer and the applicant / plaintiff had given instructions to the deed writer to make documents pertaining to co-ownership of the property; (vi) the documents prepared were registered with the understanding that the same are co-ownership documents; (vii) subsequently it came to the notice of the applicant / plaintiff that the documents got executed and registered from the applicant / plaintiff were not co-ownership documents but of absolute gift of the said property to the defendants no.1 and 2; and, (viii) the applicant / plaintiff however continued to reside in the property along with defendants no.1 and 2.