RAKESH KUMAR DUGGAL Vs. BALDEV KUMAR DUGGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this appeal came up for motion hearing on 12.5.1993, the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court issued notice of motion for 27.5.1993. Execution of the judgment and decree of the trial Court was stayed and record of the case was requisitioned through special messenger for the aforesaid date. At the time of motion hearing, after the issuance of notice of motion, Mr. A.K. Chopra, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. On the next date of hearing i.e 27.5.1993, C.M. No. 1644-C of 1993 on behalf of Smt. Sukhversha Sangar was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 and Rule 8-A read with Sections 151 & 107 C.P.C. to get her impleaded as a respondent. Notice in C.M No. 1644-C/93 was given to the counsel for the parties for 12.7.1993. Ultimately on 21.7.1993, the appeal was admitted and it was ordered that C.M. No. 1644-C of 1993 will be disposed of with the main case.

(2.) IT is pertinent to note that before the admission of the appeal on 21.7.1993, C.M. No. 2060-C of 1993 was moved in this RSA i.e. R.S.A. No. 1067 of 1993 by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 2 C.P.C. for raising an additional ground. The additional ground which was sought to be raised by the applicant-appellants reads as under:-

(3.) IT has been stated in the miscellaneous application which is supported by an affidavit by the applicant that she is the daughter of Late Shri Nihal Chand Duggal and sister of respondent/plaintiff and appellant/defendant No. 1, and she is one of the legal heirs of late Shri Nihal Chand Duggal. The others being the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant No. 1 Smt Raj Duggal with her 3 sons named Ashu, Parveen, Sanjay (the wife and children of the pre-deceased sons of late Shri Narinder Kumar Duggal son of late Shri Nihal Chand Duggal, Smt. Ved Sobti, Smt. Bimla Malhotra, Smt. Kamla Setia, Miss Kumari Duggal), Smt. Sushma Sharma. The mother of the applicant died on 6.6.1989 and other sister named Smt. Krishna also died in the year 1954 much before the death of Shri Nihal Chand Duggal and Smt. Gian Devi Duggal, the father and mother of the appellant respectively. It is stated in the application that the respondent claiming abosolute and exclusive ownership of House No. 1157/21-B, Chandigarh filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the appellants wherein some damages for use and occupation were also claimed. The applicant is resident of U.K. and visits India to attend family functions and also to meet the members of his family and other relations living in India. Whenever she visits India, she stays in the above mentioned house. The house in dispute, according to the applicant, was constructed by Late Shri Nihal Chand Duggal, father the applicant and parties to the appeal. The plot in dispute may allotted to the father of the applicant and whole of the construction was raised out of the funds raised by her father and that the house in dispute is not the exclusive and sole property of the respondent. The applicant has alleged in her application that she is the co-owner in the house and by claiming exclusive title to the house in dispute, the respondent have cast cloud on the rights of the appellants, as the house in dispute was constructed by the father of the applicant and was a joint Hindu Family property. The applicant being the daughter of Shri Nihal Chand Duggal, has succeeded as co-owner of the house in dispute.