Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS DJ 945/24 NISHA Vs. ASHISH ARYA
08.05.2025.
Present: None for the plaintiff.
Proxy counsel for the defendant no. 1
Defendant no. 2 is already ex-parte.
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the application of the plaintiff
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
2. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for seeking cancellation of
relinquishment deed dated 19/02/2024 and for seeking permanent
injunction. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff being one of the
legal heir of late Sh. Ramehar, grandfather of plaintiff and defendant
no.1 (expired on 23/05/2023) is entitled to the share in the agricultural
land measuring 33 Bhighas, 09 Biswas comprised in Khasra number
21//21 (4-16), 8(4-16), 9/2 (0-12), 14(4-16), 20 min (2-16), 42//2/2 (2-
01), 65//14/2(1-17), 18(4-16), 23 (4-16), 75//3/1(2-00), situated in the
revenue estate of village Bankner, Delhi 110040, as per revenue records
(hereinafter referred to as “suit property”). It is stated in the plaint that
plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit property as the father of the
plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 i.e. late Sh. Vijender Singh @ Vijay
had predeceased their grandfather, namely, late Sh. Ramehar. It is
further stated that the plaintiff is uneducated and is only 7th pass, the
defendant no. 1 had taken benefit of this fact and by fraudulent mis-
representaion had induced the plaintiff to execute a relinquishment deed
in favour of defendant no.1. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present
Contd….
SHIVALI
BANSAL
Digitally
signed by
SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date:
2025.05.08
15:49:14
+0530
-- 1 of 4 --
2
suit for seeking cancellation of relinquishment deed and for permanent
injunction.
3.
Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 in his WS has stated
that the plaintiff has executed relinquishment deed dated 19/02/2024 in
favour of defendant no. 1 voluntarily and without any fraud, coercion or
pressure. It is stated that the abovesaid document was executed by the
plaintiff after fully understanding the consequence of her act. It is
further averred in the WS that there are no specific allegations of fraud
pleaded in the plaint. It is the defence of the defendant no. 1 that the
deceased grandfather i.e., Sh. Ramehar Singh had executed a registered
Will dated 27/11/2017, whereby he had bequeathed the suit property in
favour of defendant no. 1 and other grandsons, namely, Sh. Naveen
Khatri and Sh. Kamal Khatri, to the exclusion of all other legal heirs. It
is also stated that all the other legal heirs have executed relinquishment
deed dated 08.08.2023 (including the mother of the plaintiff and
defendant no.1) in favour of defendant no.1 so that the intention of Late
Sh. Ramehar can be given effect to. It is further stated that prior to the
execution and registration of relinquishment deed dated 08.08.2023 by
other legal heirs, an attempt was made to register another
relinquishment deed dated 02.08.2023, however, due to plaintiff the
same could not be executed. Consequently, relinquishment deed dated
08.08.2023 was executed by the other legal heirs excluding the plaintiff
herein. It is also stated that later on plaintiff after understanding the
consequence of her act, voluntarily executed and registered
relinquishment deed dated 19/02/2024.
Contd….
SHIVALI
BANSAL
Digitally
signed by
SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date:
2025.05.08
15:49:38
+0530
-- 2 of 4 --
3
4. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has
stated that the share of the plaintiff is admitted by defendant no.1 in his
WS at para no.6. It is stated that since the share of the plaintiff is
admitted and relinquishment deed was executed without free consent,
plaintiff is entitled for the relief of temporary injunction in her favour.
5. Heard. Record Perused.
6. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and all the
documents on record, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has no
prima facie case in her favour, primarily for three reasons. Firstly, Will
dated 27.11.2017, executed and registered by Late Sh. Ramehar, clearly
excludes plaintiff from inheriting any share in the suit property. As per
said Will, the suit property was bequeathed in favour of defendant no.1
alongwith other grandsons, namely Sh. Kamal Khatri and Sh. Naveen
Khatri, to the exclusion of all the legal heirs. In furtherance of Will
dated 27.11.2017, all other legal heirs have executed relinquishment
deed dated 08.08.2023. Secondly, the affidavit dated 29/05/2024 filed
on behalf of the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff had executed
relinquishment deed dated 19.02.2024 in favour of the defendant no.1,
in lieu of some consideration/monetary benefit. This affidavit reflects
upon the element of free consent on the part of the plaintiff. Lastly, the
factum of the unregistered relinquishment deed dated 02/08/2023 which
is also signed by the plaintiff, does not find mention in the plaint, which
shows that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hand and
have suppressed facts. Therefore, this court can safely infer that the
plaintiff has no
prima facie case in her favour. Due to lack of a
prima
Contd….
SHIVALI
BANSAL
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date:
2025.05.08
15:49:42
+0530
-- 3 of 4 --
4
facie case in favour of the plaintiff, the court is under no obligation to
see whether balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and
whether irreparable loss shall be caused to the plaintiff, if interim
injunction is not disallowed.
7. The application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
stands dismissed. The observations made by the court shall have no
bearing upon the merits of the case.
8. Be put up for filing of replication, if any and for filing of affidavit
of admission/ denial of documents as well as framing of issues on
17.07.2025.
Shivali Bansal
District Judge-03, Rohini Courts
North District, Delhi
08.05.2025
SHIVALI
BANSAL
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date:
2025.05.08
15:49:47 +0530
-- 4 of 4 --