Full Judgement
Delhi High Court
Tani Sandhu Bhargava vs Shumita Didi Sandhu on 22 January, 2024
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 12th December, 2023
Pronounced on:22nd January , 2024
+ CS(OS) 452/2019 & I.A. 11742/2020
TANI SANDHU BHARGAVA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Laksh Khanna and Ms.
Smriti Maheshwari, Advocates.
versus
SHUMITA DIDI SANDHU ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Alok Gupta, Advocate for
defendant.
Ms. Mohini Narain and Mr. Ishan
Narain, Advocates in IA No.
13850/2021.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. Ekta
Gambhir, Advocates in I.A. Nos.
11075/2022 and 11075/2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
I.A. 13850/2021 (under Order I Rule 10, Order XXXII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC for impleadment); I.A. 11075/2022 (under Order I Rule 10, Order XXXII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC for impleadment) & I.A.11076/2022 (under Order XXXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC for appointment as the guardian ad-litim)
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 1 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05
1. The application being I.A. 13850/2021 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed on behalf of Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh, to be impleaded as a party and I.A. No. 11075/2022 under Order I Rule 10, Order XXXII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC, has been filed by Ms. Salina Singh Sandhu d/o Late Sh. Sanjay Singh Sandhu, through her maternal grandmother Ms. Rajni Tyagi, to be impleaded as a party to the present suit with an accompanied with an application being I.A. 11076/2022 under Order XXXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, filed on behalf of Ms. Rajni Tyagi, to be appointed as the guardian ad-litim of the applicant Ms. Salina Singh Sandhu.
2. Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh in her application has asserted that the suit property i.e. the Ground Floor of Block No. 172, Plot No. 202, JorBagh, New Delhi - 110003, comprising three bedrooms with attached bathrooms. Drawing Room, Dining Room, One Kitchen, Front Lawn, Back Courtyard, One Car Parking, One Servant Room with common Bath and Toilet on the right side of the terrace above Third Floor of Block No. 172, Plot No. 202, JorBagh, New Delhi, is an HUF property having been purchased by Late Sh. Hardev Singh, father of applicant Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh and grandfather of applicant Ms. Salina Singh Sandhu, from the proceeds of ancestral properties of the family. It is submitted that though the property had been purchased by their father in the name of mother Late Smt. Sheila Sandhu, but it does not change the character of the property even if the Sale Deed was executed in her name. Thus, the suit property being an ancestral property, Late Smt. Sheila Sandhu, the mother of applicant Ms. Zoya Mohan
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 2 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 Nursingh and grandmother of applicant Ms. Salina Singh Sandhu, did not have the right to bequeath the same to the plaintiff.
3. It is asserted that Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh and Mr. Sanjay Singh, father of applicant Ms. Salina Singh Sandhu, being the Class I heirs of Mr. Hardev Singh, have a right, title and interest in the suit property, therefore, they both by way of their respective applications, have sought their impleadment in the present suit.
4. It is asserted that the plaintiff has taken advantage of the mental condition of Late Mrs. Sheila Devi who was showing symptoms of early onset of alzheimers and dementia since 2006, to get the documents executed in her favour. Thus, undue force and coercion has been exercised by the plaintiff in execution of the documents which are illegal and void.
5. Similar grounds have been agitated by Ms. Salina Singh Sandhu for her impleadment through her maternal grandmother, as she is a minor.
6. The applications are contested by the plaintiff, who has stated that a registered Gift Deed dated 29.01.2008, was executed in her name by her mother Late Smt. Sheila Devi. She had also executed a prior Will dated 22.06.2006, wherein she had stated that the residential property bearing No. 202, Zor Bagh (Ground Floor) along with the commercial property at World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi, shall be bequeathed to the plaintiff.
7. Not only this, a subsequent Will dated 18.08.2011 was executed by Ms. Sheila Sandhu, wherein, she had revoked all her earlier Wills and executed a fresh Will in respect of her assets, which she bequeathed to the legal heirs of Late Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu, her son/husband of the defendant and to the applicant Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh. It is asserted that
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 3 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 in the subsequent Will, there was no mention of the suit property since it stood gifted to the plaintiff.
8. It is submitted that the suit property was an individual property of Ms. Sheila Sandhu, who has gifted the same to her through a registered Gift Deed and the applicants have no right to be impleaded in this suit simpliciter filed for Possession and Mandatory Injunction against the defendant.
9. The plaintiff has submitted that that the applicant, Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh was always aware of the execution of the Gift Deed and as such she is now estopped from raising the plea or challenging the Gift Deed and consequently, she cannot be impleaded as a party. She also filed additional documents in support thereof.
10. During the pendency of the application, on 31.08.2022 the applicant Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh passed away and consequently, vide Order dated 25.01.2023, this Court allowed the application bearing No. 15643/2022 filed for the substitution of LRs of the Late Applicant.
11. The applicants 2a and 2b/ Lrs of Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh, in their detailed Rejoinder addressed the additional documents filed by the plaintiff and asserted that the emails relied upon by the plaintiff, do not mention any Gift Deed executed in her favour; on the contrary, there is a reference to the properties as the „Undivided Ancestral Property‟ which is not refuted by anyone.
12. It is submitted that the documents do not disclose or establish the factum of prior knowledge regarding the rights of the applicant in the suit property. Further, the details in support of the applicant's claim on the suit property are reiterated, the same having been purchased in the name of their
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 4 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 mother Ms. Sheila Sandhu from the ancestral funds and has reiterated their claim of being the co-owners in the suit property.
13. The applicant, Ms. Salina Singh Sandhu, in her Rejoinder denied the averments made by the plaintiff and reiterated her assertions as made in the application.
14. In the Written Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff it has been stated that the applications for impleadment filed by the applicants, are not maintainable and they have no title and interest in the suit property.
15. It is asserted that the applicants are not necessary party as the same is not a suit for Partition or Declaration of Title. In fact, it is a suit for Possession and Permanent Injunction against the defendant and the claim of the applicants with respect to the title of the property cannot be decided in the present suit for possession. The plaintiff has placed reliance on the case of Mohd. Hussain Gulam Ali Sharifi vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors. (2020) 14 SCC 392; J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. M.R. Murali and Another (2002) 3 SCC 98; Sahil Marwaha vs Trilochan Kaur Marwaha, Delhi High Court in Suit No. 108 of 1996 decided on 16.08.2000; and Vijay Pratap vs. Sambhu Saran Sinha and Ors. (1996) 10 SCC 53, in this regard.
16. It is further submitted that the applicants cannot be called as necessary parties to the suit as no relief has been claimed against them in the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, for which reliance has been placed on the cases of Kasturi vs Iyyamperumal & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 733; Kanaklata Das vs. Naba Kumar Dass, (2018) 2 SC and Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs Kiran Kant Robinson and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 733.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 5 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05
17. It has also been argued that the Gift Deed was executed in the year 2008 and since then it was well within the knowledge of the applicants despite which it was not challenged by them. Attention has been drawn to the fact that Late Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh filed the present Application in 2021, despite knowing the fact that the Plaintiff is also paying the property tax of the suit property being the owner of the property since 2009. Further reference has been made to the case of Dibloo (Dead) by LRs and Ors. vs. Dhanraji (Dead) and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 702, to assert that whenever a document is registered, it is deemed to be in public knowledge as observed in the case of Dilboo and Ors. V. Dhanraji & Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 702. The date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. Thus, the Gift Deed was always in the knowledge of the applicants and the same was not challenged within the period of limitation.
18. It is submitted that the suit property was the self-acquired property of the mother Smt. Sheila Sandhu, and is now the exclusive property of the plaintiff by virtue of the Gift Deed executed in her favour. It is argued that of a person acquires the self -acquired property of the parent, it becomes the self-acquired property of the receiver as observed in the case of Ashnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur and Ors. (2020) 14 SCC 436 and Savita Anand v. Krishna and Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 5214.
19. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Madalsa Sood v. Maunicka Makkar & Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine Del. 5217 to assert that moonshine defences should not go to trial.
20. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Rajeev Tadon & Ors. v. Rashmi Tandon 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7336, Vijaya Mahane v. Satya Bhushan Kaura, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 828; Bhanu Kumar jain v. Archana
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 6 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 Kumar & Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 787; Muppidathi Pillai vs Krishnaswami Pullai, 1959 SCC OnLine Mad. 314; and Deccan Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 786.
21. In light of the above arguments, the plaintiff has asserted that the applications for impleadment filed by the Applicants namely Late Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh [I.A. 13850/2021] and Ms. Salina Singh Sandhu [I.A. 11075/2022] are liable to be dismissed.
22. In their respective Written Submissions, the applicants have reiterated their contentions as made in the applications and it has further been argued that the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff is predicated on the alleged 'Title' claimed by the plaintiff. As the plaintiff is required to prove her Title in the suit property based on the alleged Gift Deed dated 28.01.2008 to succeed, the issue regarding title shall have to be framed and any finding on this aspect will adversely affects the rights of the applicants herein. It is distinguishable from the cases of Landlord Tenant relationship where the Title and ownership of the suit property is not germane to the case. Thus, it is submitted that the applicants are necessary parties for the adjudication of the suit. Reliance has been placed on the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others (1992) 2 SCC 524; Sumitbai and others v. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj) Through Mankanwar (Smt) w/o Parasmal Chordia (dead) and others (2007) 10 SCC 82; PankajBhai Rameshbhai Zalavaidya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavaidya (deceased) through Legal Representatives and others (2017) 9 SCC 700; Ramvir Singh v. Sangeeta Aggarwal and others 2011 SCC OnLine Del 952; Brahma Nand Puri v.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 7 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05
Naki Puri, (1965) 2 SCR 233; and Nilofar Singh v. Pramod Dang and another 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3893.
23. It is further contended that the under the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 there is no limitation for setting up a defence, as observed in the case of Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N. Ruia and others, AIR 2004 SC 2546.
24. Submissions heard.
25. The plaintiff, Ms. Tani Sandhu has filed a suit for Possession and Permanent Injunction against the defendant Ms. Shumita Didi Sandhu, wife of her Late brother Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu.
26. The plaintiff has stated in her plaint that Smt. Sheila Sandhu had acquired the subject property vide a Registered Sale Deed dated 06.05.2005 and during her life time, she had executed various Wills. The most significant is the Will dated 26.06.2006, wherein she bequeathed the suit property, as well as, the other commercial property at Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi, in favour of the plaintiff, who is the daughter of Late Smt. Sheila Sandhu. However, she subsequently executed a Registered Gift Deed dated 29.01.2008, in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, she executed another Will dated 18.08.2011, bequeathing her assets to her son Late Sh. Sanjay Singh Sandhu and to her daughter Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh/applicant. It has been pointed out that in the said Will, there was no mention whatsoever of the property in question as the same already stood gifted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had further asserted that Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu never challenged the title of the plaintiff in the suit property.
27. To establish her ownership, it has been stated that the plaintiff is shown as an owner in the records of NDMC, and the property tax, notices
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 8 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 and receipts are also issued in her name by NDMC. Moreover, she has been paying the property tax since 2009 and the electricity bills and water bills are being paid by her.
28. The plaintiff further explained that her mother Ms. Sheila Sandhu resided in the suit property since the year 2005 and she ensured that she was provided with the requisite emotional care and infrastructural facility and was incurring about Rs.1,65,820/- per month on her medical needs and other requirements. It has been asserted that her brother Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu came to reside in the suit property in 2008. He was suffering from severe Psychiatric disorder and considering his poor health, she had permitted Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu to reside in the suit property.
29. The plaintiff has further explained that Mr. Sanajy Singh Sandhu had gotten married to defendant on 05.11.1994, however, they developed matrimonial disputes and multiple litigations happened inter se them. The defendant had filed the suit CS(OS) No. 41/05 against her husband Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu and parents-in-law and since then she had not visited the suit property or the plaintiff or the family estate. However, suddenly in December 2017, after about last 14 years, she reappeared and started regularly visiting the suit property on the ground that she wanted to take care of her husband Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu. Looking at the ill health of her brother and his willingness to spend time with the defendant, she allowed the defendant to temporarily visit the suit property. However, on 19.08.2018 to her shock and horror, the defendant moved in the suit property illegally along with her furniture and luggage and unlawfully occupied the suit property and placed her personal security guards at the suit property.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 9 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05
30. After the demise of her brother Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu on 03.07.2019, she wanted the atmosphere in the house to be peaceful for the sake of her ailing mother. She, however, found that valuable paintings of her mother worth Rs.2 Crores had been removed by the defendant. Subsequently, she, scared of her own and her mother's well-being on account of strangers visiting the property, decided to file the present suit for seeking possession from the defendant and also for restraining her from entering into the suit property.
31. The plaintiff has also explained that the defendant had filed CS(OS) No. 41/05 against her husband Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu, her father-in-law Mr. Hardev Singh Sandhu and mother-in-law Ms. Sheila Sandhu, in respect of the Lajpat Nagar house, where Ms. Sheila Sandhu resided before purchasing the suit property, claiming her right to reside in the said property, though it had been forcibly occupied by her.
32. The Division Bench vide its judgment in FAO(OS) 341/2007 in CS(OS) 41/05 held that the defendant had no right to the shared household in the Lajpat Nagar house as neither she nor her husband Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu either owned the property or paid any rent for it. Further, the property was never part of any joint property of the husband's family. Therefore, the property did not constitute a shared household joint family property.
33. The defendant in her Written Statement had claimed in detail that the suit property was purchased from the ancestral funds and that she through her husband, has a right to the suit property and thus resisted the claim of the plaintiff for possession. She also claimed that the Gift Deed dated
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 10 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 29.01.2008, relied upon by the plaintiff, was manipulated by the plaintiff on account of frail health of Smt. Sheila Sandhu.
34. During the pendency of this suit, applicant Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh, who is the daughter of Late Ms. Sheila Sandhu and applicant Ms. Salina, d/o Late Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu s/o Ms. Sheila Sandhu, through her maternal grandmother, had sought to be impleaded as defendants on the similar ground that the suit property was in fact purchased by Late Mr. Hardev Singh from the ancestral funds in the name of his wife Ms. Sheila Sandhu and thus, the suit property was an HUF property, in which they have a right of ownership. It is claimed by them that they are necessary parties to the present suit and may be accordingly impleaded.
35. The short issue for the consideration of this Court is whether the applicants can be allowed to be impleaded in the present proceedings for Possession and Permanent Injunction.
36. Interestingly, this is a suit filed by the plaintiff simpliciter for seeking possession from the defendant, who is the wife of her deceased brother, by claiming that she was had been permitted to visit the suit property to be with her husband Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu, who was ailing and had expressed his desire to spend his time with his wife. She was only a permissive user who is liable to be evicted.
37. Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC empowers the Court to add the name of the plaintiff or defendant who should be joined or whose presence before the Court may be necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the issues involved in the suit.
38. In the case of Kasturi (Supra), the Supreme Court observed that for the twin test to be satisfied for determining the question who a necessary
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 11 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 party is are: (1) There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; and (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.
39. It was further observed in Kasturi (Supra) that in a suit for deciding the question of who is a necessary party, the question is to be decided keeping in mind the scope of the suit. In a suit for specific performance, the guiding principle is that the presence of such party is necessary to adjudicate the controversies involved in the suit for specific performance of the Contract for sale. If on the addition of the person, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be enlarged and would be converted to a suit for title, presence of such parties cannot be said to be necessary at all.
40. Sub Rule 2 of Order I Rule 10 CPC uses the expression "all the questions involved in the suit", from which it is abundantly clear that the legislature intended that the controversies raised between the parties to the litigation alone must be gone into; i.e. the controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other side, and not the controversies which may arise between the parties to the suit and the third party. This would only lead to complicated litigation by going into the trial to decide issues which is totally outside the scope of the suit. The suit for Possession and Permanent Injunction based on the claim of defendant being in permissive user, would not affect the rights of the third parties claiming any independent title.
41. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Pratap (supra), observed that in a suit for Specific Performance, the petitioners who were contending that the Relinquishment Deed said to have been signed by their father, was not genuine could not be added as necessary parties in the suit. It was observed
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 12 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 the making the petitioner parties to the suit would give rise to question of right, title, and interest in the suit property which would be beyond the scope of the suit. The question of the validity of the Relinquishment Deed cannot be gone into in the present suit, and the remedy lies elsewhere.
42. Likewise, in Gurmit Singh Bhatia (supra), it was observed that merely in order to find out who is in possession of the contracted property, a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added in a suit for Specific Performance of the contract because they are not necessary party as they have no semblance of right to some relief against the party to the contract. It was further observed that even if a decree for Specific Performance was made against the defendants, the persons who are not party in the Court, would be at liberty either to obstruct the execution or to protect their possession and take legal recourse as they were not a party to contract or Agreement to Sell.
43. It may, thus be concluded that a third party or a stranger cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit for another character. The collateral matters cannot be included and adjudicated for it would complicate the suit for possession into that of title between the plaintiff and the proposed defendants.
44. In the present case, though the defendant has asserted right in the suit property and has also claimed that the plaintiff had got the Gift Deed executed in her favour by exercising force and coercion on Ms. Sheila Sandhu, but no relief of challenge by way of Declaration of the Gift Deed being invalid, has been claimed by the defendant. It is a simpliciter suit for possession to determine if the defendant had been allowed permissive use in the suit premises, by the plaintiff. Here, there is no declaration sought in
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 13 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 respect of the ownership or title of the suit property, either by the plaintiff or the defendant.
45. The two applicants are asserting a right to the suit property by asserting it to be purchased from ancestral funds and are also claiming that the Gift Deed allegedly executed in favour of the plaintiff, was under force and coercion. Be as it may, the applicants have an independent right to question the ownership/title of the plaintiff in the suit property. The scope of the present suit is confined only to possession and it cannot be expanded to be made into a title suit. If there is any challenge inter se the legal heirs of Ms. Sheila Devi, the applicants are at liberty to take legal remedy, as per law. However, they are neither necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the present suit.
46. It is pertinent to observe that applicant Ms. Salina is none other than the minor daughter of the defendant and her husband late Mr. Sanjay Singh. She has not filed the application through her mother, who is already a party to the suit but through her maternal Grandmother for the reasons which speak volumes in absentia. Clearly, the application is motivated by ulterior motives to somehow derail the trial of the present case.
47. It is pertinent to note that the cases relied on by the applicants do not make a case in support of their assertions.
48. The case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra) relied upon by the applicants discusses the law on Order I Rule 10 however, ultimately it is observed by the court that in a suit filed by the Dealer challenging the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for demolition of unauthorised structures raised by it, the lessee who was claiming to be a necessary party having material to show that the structures were not unauthorised, was not a
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 14 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 necessary party to the suit. It was further observed that adding the lessee would enlarge the scope of the suit and that a fresh litigation could be avoided by adding the lessee was not a good enough reason for impleadment.
49. In case of PankajBhai Rameshbhai Zalavaidya (supra), it was observed by the Apex Court that in a suit for setting aside the Sale of the land, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4 for bringing on record the LRs of the defendant, to whom the land in question had been sold, the application could not have been dismissed by the Trial Court merely for citing a wrong provision since the impleadment of the LRs was necessary for deciding the questions involved in the suit.
50. In the case of PankajBhai Rameshbhai Zalavaidya (supra), the validity of the Sale Deed was the subject matter of the suit, hence, as the LRs of the alleged purchaser, the defendants were allowed to be impleaded as necessary parties to the suit. In the present case, the validity of the Gift Deed is not a subject-matter of the suit, the suit being merely for possession and permanent injunction. Hence, the above case is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case and does not aid the case of the applicants.
51. Similarly, the case of Ramvir Singh (Supra), is also distinguishable on facts as the suit for Possession and Permanent Injunction had been by filed the respondent No.2, and the applicant had disputed the claim of ownership and possession made by the respondent No.2. Thus, there was a dispute regarding not only ownership but also possession of the suit property which was the subject matter of the suit. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding possession of the suit property and the applicants are only
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 15 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05 challenging the title of the plaintiff in the suit property, which is clearly beyond the scope of the suit.
52. In the case of Nilofar Singh (Supra), relied upon by the applicants, the plaintiff had filed the suit for relief including, inter alia, Declaration Possession and Mandatory Injunction in respect of the suit property. The applications for impleadment of proposed defendant O.P. Manchanda and ASG Securities filed by the plaintiff were allowed, as the plaintiff was claiming that he was the owner of the property and he had handed over permissive possession to the defendant No.1, while the defendant No.1 was stating that the plaintiff had entered into a sale transaction with O.P. Manchanda who had subsequently sold it to ASG Securities, who was in possession thereafter. This case is disgustable on the facts as the suit being one for reliefs including Declaration and Possession, title and possession by the applicants was a disputed fact which was necessary to be established. In the present case, there is no declaration for title is sought by the plaintiff.
53. Accordingly, the two applications filed by Ms. Zoya Mohan Nursingh and Ms. Salina for impleadment as defendants along with the application filed on behalf of Ms. Rajni Tyagi, to be appointed as the guardian ad-litim of Ms. Salina, are hereby dismissed.
I.A. 11742/2020 (Under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC)
54. Put up for consideration on 10.07.2024.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE JANUARY 22, 2024 RS/nk
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 16 of 16 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:23.01.2024 17:51:05
