Final Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 34 CS DJ 366/23 PREMLATA Vs. SATPAL
26.07.2025
Present: Ms. Akansha, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Amit
Srivastava, counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant is yet to be summoned.
Repeated adjournments have been sought on behalf
of the plaintiff to address arguments on the maintainability of the
suit. Accordingly I am constrained to decide this issue on the
basis of the material on record.
Admittedly, the plaintiff is the wife of defendant.
The defendant is still alive. The parties are having maritial
discord amongst them whereof several legal proceedings are
pending. The plaintiff in the suit claims that the suit property was
purchased out of the funds provided by the plaintiff as well as her
father. She thus seeks a declaration with regard to her 2/3rd share
in the suit property ; its partition ; permanent injunction to
restrain the defendant from selling it or alienating it and
mandatory injunction directing the defendants to give the suit
property to the plaintiff. The plaint is accompanied with an
allotment letter issued by Panchayat department of Delhi
Administration whereof the suit property was initially allotted to
the father in law of the plaintiff on rental basis for six years. The
allotment was purely for residential purposes with specific
condition that the allottee will not transfer or sell the same. This
allotment letter itself shows that the father in law of the plaintiff
was a tenant for six years in the suit property belonging to Delhi
Administration. So neither the plaintiff, nor anyone else except
-2-
-- 1 of 2 --
the Delhi Administration has a right to seek any relief qua the
title or ownership of the suit property. Since neither the
defendant, nor his predecessor including his father had any
ownership/title in the suit property whereby the plaintiff cannot
seek either its partition or declaration of title or any other
consequential relief, moreso, when the allotment was a temporary
tenancy only for six years. Nothing has come on record
suggesting that this tenancy was ever exteneded. In the given
circumstances, the plaint discloses no cause of action whereby,
the same is rejected suo motu u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC.
File be consigned to record room after necessary
compliance.
(Sidharth Mathur)
District Judge-01(N)/Rohini
Courts Delhi/ 26.07.2025
-- 2 of 2 --