High CourtsDivision Bench(2008) 09 DEL CK 0112

Davinder Kaur vs Rajinder Kumar Lamba and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 24 September 2008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mukul Mudgal, J · Manmohan, J
CASE NUMBER
Regular First Appeal (OS) No. 66 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 371 words

Manmohan, J.—The present appeal has been filed u/s 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the partial judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2008 passed by learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 2100/1996. By the virtue of the impugned order, learned Single Judge has passed a decree for specific performance of the Agreement dated 27th September, 1995 against Shri Narinder Singh (Respondent No. 2 herein) to the extent of his 2/7th undivided share in the property bearing No. 72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi. However, learned Single Judge has neither granted relief of possession nor a declaration that the Agreement executed between the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was illegal and void. On these aspects the learned Single Judge has observed that the case is required to be put to trial and needs to be adjudicated.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that in the suit filed by the plaintiff � Respondent No. 1 there was a misjoinder of parties as the original plaintiff � Respondent No. 1 had no privity of contract with the Appellant. It was further submitted that the plaintiff � Respondent No. 1 had no locus to impugn the Agreement to Sell executed between the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. He further pointed out that a suit for partition was already pending between the earstwhile owners of the suit property namely the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

3.

However, in response to our queries, learned Counsel for Appellant fairly stated that the Appellant had nothing to do with the Agreement to Sell executed between the Respondent No. 2 and plaintiff � Respondent No. 1.

4.

We are of the view that learned Single Judge has neither dealt with nor decided any of the issues canvassed by the Appellant before us. We are also of the opinion that the impugned order in no way prejudices the rights of the Appellant. Consequently, we dispose of the present appeal by observing that all arguments, contentions and submissions are open to the Appellant (including the submissions raised before us) and the same shall be dealt with by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law at an appropriate stage.