Delhi High CourtSatish Chand & Ors. vs Dalbir Singh on 18 August, 2021Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 1421Author:Prathiba M. SinghBench:Prathiba M. SinghDigitally Signed By:DINESH\n                                                           SINGH NAYAL\n                                                           Signing Date:24.08.2021 15:15:28\n\n\n$~24\n*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n                                          Date of Decision: 18th August, 2021\n+             RSA 63/2021 & CM APPLs. 26872-73/2021\n       SATISH CHAND & ORS.                               ..... Appellants\n                    Through:            Mr. Anil Kumar Tripathi and Mr.\n                                        Rahul Sharma, Advocates.\n                          versus\n       DALBIR SINGH                                         ..... Respondent\n                          Through:      None.\n       CORAM:\n       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH\nPrathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)1.     This hearing has been done through video conferencing.2.     The present second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned\njudgment and decree dated 3rd February, 2021 by which the judgment and\ndecree passed by the Trial Court dated 20th July, 2020 has been upheld by\nthe Appellate Court.3.     The property in question is property bearing No.P-24, Pandav Nagar,\nMayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi-110091 (hereinafter, "suit property"). Mr.\nDalbir Singh - the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") had filed a\nsuit for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and mesne profits\nagainst the Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter, "Defendants"), who are the\nelder son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the Plaintiff.4.     The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the third floor with\nterrace in the suit property. According to the Plaintiff, he had purchased the\nsuit property in 1987. In 1996, he transferred ownership of the suit property\nin favour of his wife - Smt. Nepali. The case of the Appellants is that uponRSA 63/2021                                                                     Page 1 of 5Digitally Signed By:DINESH\n                                                              SINGH NAYAL\n                                                              Signing Date:24.08.2021 15:15:28\n\n\nthe death of the Plaintiff's wife, the son executed a relinquishment deed in\nfavour of the father under the assurance that the suit property would be\nbequeathed equally upon the two sons. The said relinquishment deed was\nregistered on 27th July, 2015. However, the father changed his mind and the\nearlier Will dated 11th August, 2015, which was executed giving both the\nsons an equal share in the suit property was cancelled and a new Will was\nexecuted by the Plaintiff-father on 25th July, 2016. On the basis of this new\nWill and the fact that the Plaintiff has disowned the Appellants herein by\nissuing a public notice, the Plaintiff-father sought a mandatory and\npermanent injunction against the Appellants for eviction of the Appellants\nherein from the suit property.5.       In the suit, the impugned order was passed on 20th July, 2020 in the\napplication underOrder XII Rule 6 CPC. The findings of the Trial Court are\nthat the Defendants in the suit did not dispute the fact that the father was the\nowner of the suit property; the only defence is that the relinquishment deed\nwas executed under the clear assurance by the father that half of the suit\nproperty would devolve upon Appellant No.1. The Trial Court, however,\nclearly observed that the relinquishment deed having been executed, the\ndecree is liable to be passed. The relevant findings of the Trial Court are as\nunder:"15. In the present case, relinquishment deed and\n               admission by the defendant manifestly proves that\n               no right vests with any of the defendants in the suit\n               property and consequently, plaintiff is the sole\n               owner of the suit property. Being the owner of the\n               suit property, the plaintiff is at liberty to remove the\n               defendants from the suit property. Furthermore, in\n               my view, the defendants have failed to raise anyRSA 63/2021                                                                        Page 2 of 5Digitally Signed By:DINESH\n                                                            SINGH NAYAL\n                                                            Signing Date:24.08.2021 15:15:28\n\n\n                substantial defence which requires trial of the suit.16. Accordingly, the application moved by the\n                plaintiff underOrder 12, Rule 6 CPCis allowed and\n                judgment on admission is passed in favour of the\n                plaintiff and against defendant no.1 in respect to\n                mandatory and permanent injunction. Defendants\n                are directed to vacate and handover the peaceful\n                possession of the terrace and third floor of property\n                bearing no. P-24, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar,\n                Phase I, Delhi - 110009 (as shown in the site plan)\n                to the plaintiff. Site plan shall form part of the\n                decree. The defendants are also hereby permanently\n                restrained from creating any third party interest,\n                alienating, dispossessing the plaintiff, selling,\n                altering, damaging or constructing upon the suit\n                property."6.     The Appellate Court has upheld the said decree vide the impugned\norder dated 3rd February, 2021. The relevant findings of the Appellate Court\nare as under:"6. Insofar as appellants' contentions about their\n                right, title or interest in the aforesaid property is\n                concerned, the same are without any merit. It is an\n                undisputed fact that the property in question\n                belonged to Smt. Nepali. It is also not in dispute\n                that Smt. Nepali passed away on 01.05.2015 leaving\n                behind the appellant no.1, respondent and Rakesh as\n                her legal heirs in terms ofsection 15(1)(a)of Hindu\n                Succession Act, 1956. It is also not in dispute that\n                subsequent thereto Rakesh and appellant no.1 had\n                executed registered relinquishment deed dt.\n                27.07.2015 in favour of the respondent. In terms of\n                this relinquishment deed, Rakesh and Satish had\n                released their rights in favour of the respondent\n                voluntarily without any undue pressure or coercion\n                and after fully understanding the implications. By\n                virtue of this registered relinquishment deed (clauseRSA 63/2021                                                                      Page 3 of 5Digitally Signed By:DINESH\n                                                            SINGH NAYAL\n                                                            Signing Date:24.08.2021 15:15:28\n\n\n              2 thereof), respondent became the absolute owner of\n              the property in question. The relinquishment deed\n              also states that Rakesh and the appellant no.1 Satish\n              shall not make any claim or right in the property in\n              question and they will neither raise any objections\n              at the time of mutation. Thus, the contention of the\n              appellants that the relinquishment deed was\n              executed with certain pre-conditions is without any\n              merit. This contentions about pre-conditions for\n              executing the relinquishment deed is contrary to its\n              written text and in contravention ofsections 91/92of\n              Evidence Act. As such, this Court cannot accept the\n              contention that the relinquishment deed was\n              executed with the pre-condition that the respondent\n              shall partition the property in question.7.      The Will dt. 27.07.2015 was to take effect\n              after the demise of the testator (respondent). Under\n              the law, testator can revoke his Will at any time.\n              Given this, there can be no objection from any\n              quarter in respondent's act in revoking his Will dt.\n              27.07.2015. In any case, a Will takes effect only\n              after the demise of the testator. Thus, the appellants\n              can legally not raise any objection to the respondent\n              revoking his Will dt. 27.07.2015.8.      For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in\n              the contentions of the appellant regarding their\n              right, title and interest in the property in question.\n              Respondent, under the law, has to be taken to be the\n              title holder of the property in question."7.     The Appellate Court observed that there is no dispute as to the\nexecution of the relinquishment deed and the deed itself is clear that the\nRespondent/Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. In view of\nthis, the Appellants' contention that the relinquishment deed was executed\nwith the pre-condition that the Respondent shall partition the property in\nquestion cannot be accepted as the same is contrary to the written text of theRSA 63/2021                                                                      Page 4 of 5Digitally Signed By:DINESH\n                                                          SINGH NAYAL\n                                                          Signing Date:24.08.2021 15:15:28\n\n\nrelinquishment deed and in contravention ofSections 91and92of Indian\nEvidence Act, 1972.8.      Mr. Rahul Sharma, ld. counsel submits that the assurance given by the\nPlaintiff-father has not been honoured by him and therefore, he should be\nbound by his assurance as, if not for the assurance, the relinquishment deed\nwould not have been executed.9.      The relinquishment deed being a registered document, Appellant No.1\nhas given up his rights in the suit property, in favour of his father. An\nalleged oral assurance, which the father is stated to have given in favour of\nboth of his sons, would not hold any value in the face of a registered\nrelinquishment deed.10.     Under these circumstances, since the relinquishment deed is admitted\nby Appellant No.1 and during the lifetime, the father cannot be legally\nfaulted for changing his Will, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial\nquestion of law arises. The Court notes that the relationship between the\nAppellant and the Plaintiff also seems to have deteriorated, leading to the\nPlaintiff seeking eviction by filing of the suit. The Court is also informed\nthat the Appellant and his family have vacated the suit property. The view of\nthe Trial Court and the Appellate Court cannot be faulted.11.     In view of the above, there are no substantial questions of law that\narise in the present appeal. The impugned judgements do not warrant\ninterference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. All pending applications\nare also disposed of.PRATHIBA M. SINGH\n                                                         JUDGE\nAUGUST 18, 2021/dk/T\n(corrected & released on 23rd August, 2021)RSA 63/2021                                                                    Page 5 of 5