DEEP DUA Vs. TEJINDER KUMAR MUTENEJA
LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-236
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on August 22,2013

Deep Dua Appellant
VERSUS
Tejinder Kumar Muteneja Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SIDRAMAPPA V. RAJASHETTY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
VALLABH DAS V. DR. MADAN LAL AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
Y A AJIT VS. SOFANA AJIT [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL ARORA VS. SHIV KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
VIRGO INDUSTRIES P LTD VS. VENTURETECH SOLUTIONS P LTD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MOHAMMED MUJTABA ALI VS. MOHAMMED MURTAZA ALI [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-6-103] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT ROY VS. H.H. JYOTHENDRA SINHJI VIKRAMSINHJI [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-271] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ ROOP VS. JITENDER SINGH & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-209] [REFERRED]
INFONOX SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. VS. RAJ KUMAR DUBEY [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-244] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA SHARMA VS. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2020-5-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff and defendant are brother and sister. The present suit is filed for partition, declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiff who claims to be a coowner of property No. E-134, Preet Vihar, Near Durga Mandir, Delhi- 110092.
(2.)It is the contention of the plaintiff that the property was owned by her late father and mother. The father of the plaintiff and defendant died on 27th January, 1992 without leaving any Will. The mother of the parties died on 9th January, 2006. Hence it is contended that the said property was joint property and the plaintiff is a co-sharer.
(3.)The plaintiff further states that the defendant came to the residence of the plaintiff on 20.04.2010 and asked her to sign some papers for the transfer of the said property in the name of the defendant but the plaintiff refused to sign the papers. The plaintiff further admits that she had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi on 15.05.2010. It is further stated that when the defendant appeared, a new fact came into the picture when the defendant told the Court that the plaintiff had already executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant on 12.08.2009 which deed, the plaintiff states, is not admitted. The plaintiff further submits that defendant has fraudulently and by misguiding her taken her signature on the said documents. Nothing further is mentioned about the earlier suit filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.