ANIL KUMAR GOEL Vs. REKHA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 31st May, 2018 has been passed by the Ld. ADJ in the suit filed by the Petitioner-husband (hereinafter, 'Plaintiff') against his wife - Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 (hereinafter, 'Defendant No.1') seeking declaration, cancellation of documents, permanent and mandatory injunction. The case of the Plaintiff Mr. Anil Kumar Goel is that the suit relates to property bearing No.4579, Gali Nathan Singh, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi admeasuring 90 Sq. Yards. The same was owned by his mother through a registered sale deed, which is registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. The mother of the Plaintiff - Smt. Pushpa Aggarwal has passed away on 1st March, 1991 leaving behind four children and her husband. It is further the case of the Plaintiff that the wife/Respondent No.1 had fraudulently got certain documents executed by his father i.e., her father in law - transferring the property in her favour. These documents are challenged in the suit filed by the Plaintiff-husband.

(2.) By the impugned order, the ld. ADJ has transferred the suit seeking reliefs of cancellation of documents and injunction to the Family Court on the ground that the same is covered under Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (the 'Act'). The reasoning given by the ld. ADJ is that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is covered under Section 7(1)(c) of the Act. This order of the ld. ADJ has been impugned before this Court. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff relies upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in Krishnan Nambudiri v. Thankamani, 1994 2 DMC 223, wherein the Court has held that if there are other claimants to the property, then the same would not be covered by Section 7(1)(c) of the Act.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order, as also the judgement cited by ld. counsel for the Plaintiff, clearly, shows that unless and until the property belongs to either of the spouses or it is jointly owned by them, the same would not be covered under Section 7(1)(c) of the Act. In fact, the Kerala High Court has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in V. L. N. S. Temple v. I. Pattabhirami, 1967 AIR(SC) 781 wherein it is categorically held that if there are other claimants to the property, the same would not be covered by the said provision.