TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....torney of defendant No.1 Prem Prakash Khanna in favour of the defendant No.7 Anu Narula is null and void; and, (v) for partition of property No.M-174, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi. 2. The defendant No.3 Ravinder Khanna, besides filing his written statement, also filed a Counter-Claim, being Counter-Claim No.10/2018, seeking (a) declaration that the defendant No.3 Ravinder Khanna is the exclusive owner of property No.M-174, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi and that the Sale Deed executed by DLF Limited in respect of plot No.M-174 in favour of the defendants No.1&2 was a document of title in favour of the defendant No.3 Ravinder Khanna; (b) declaration that the Gift Deed dated 4th September, 2015 executed by defendants No.1&2 of the property in favour of defendant No.7 Anu Narula is illegal, and, (c) mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.7 Anu Narula to deposit the original Power of Attorney executed by defendant No.1 Prem Prakash Khanna in favour of defendant No.2 Krishan Kumari Khanna, on the basis of which Gift Deed was executed in this Court by defendant No.2 Krishan Kumari Khanna on behalf of herself and defendant No.1 Prem Prakash Khanna in favour of the defe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said suit the parents filed an application for rejection of the plaint and the plaint in the said suit was rejected on the ground of the suit claim being barred by Benami law; (ii) that Ravinder Khanna filed First Appeal before the District Judge against the order of rejection of the plaint and which was allowed and the suit restored; (iii) the parents filed Second Appeal against the order of restoration of the suit and which was admitted but subsequently withdrew the same; (iv) the trial in the said suit pending in the Court of the Civil Judge has been completed and Ravinder Khanna has filed a Transfer Petition in this Court for transfer of the said suit to this Court for being heard along with the present suit and which Transfer Petition is pending; and (v) Ravinder Khanna, after the parents executed the Gift Deed aforesaid, instituted CS(OS) No.358/2016 for declaration as null and void of the said Gift Deed but the said suit was dismissed in limine on 22nd March, 2017 and RFA(OS) No.31/2017 preferred thereagainst was also disposed of vide order dated 16th May, 2017 and which order has attained finality. 7. I have enquired from the counsels that since the father Prem Prakash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty during their visits to India. 8. Though as observed in the order dated 10th January, 2020, in a suit for injunction simpliciter, title to the property is not to be investigated and it was the case of the defendant No.3/counter-claimant Ravinder Khanna that in the said suit, evidence on title has been recorded but inspite thereof, the counsel for the defendant No.3/counter-claimant Ravinder Khanna has not brought the issues framed in the said suit. 9. The only argument of the counsel for the defendant No.3/counter-claimant Ravinder Khanna is, (i) that on filing of the present suit, a fresh cause of action has accrued to the defendant No.3/counter-claimant Ravinder Khanna to file the Counter-Claim; and (ii) that the suit in which recording of evidence stands concluded, be called to this Court. 10. As far as the second of the aforesaid contentions is concerned, a Transfer Petition filed by the defendant No.3/counter-claimant Ravinder Khanna in this Court, as also recorded in the order dated 10th January, 2020, is pending consideration and the question of this Court, seized of the suit and the Counter-Claim, exercising the transfer jurisdiction does not arise. Thus, the only amb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any right to the property and are holding the property as trustees of the defendant No.3/counter-claimant Ravinder Khanna. 12. The defendant No.7 Anu Narula seeks rejection of the Counter-Claim on the ground of the same having not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and appropriate court fees having not been paid thereon. It is argued that the Gift Deed shows the value of the property as Rs. 6.60 crores and the defendant No.3/counter-claimant Ravinder Khanna, seeking setting aside of the said Gift Deed, is liable to pay ad valorem court fees thereon. 13. The counsel for the defendant No.3/counter-claimant Ravinder Khanna, in response to the above, merely states that it has been held in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh [2010] 12 SCC 112 that a non-party to a deed, does not have to sue for cancellation of the deed and can sue merely for declaration that the deed is invalid, illegal or non-binding. 14. Undoubtedly so, but the said judgment is being applied selectively. It also holds that if the non-party to the deed seeking declaration as null and void of the deed is not in possession, ad valorem court fees has to be paid. 15. However the need to cal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kailash -II, New Delhi was thus purchased by Defendant nos. 1 & 2 from the aforesaid money sent by Ravinder Khanna. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had no contribution because they were hardly able to support the family out of meagre income of salary. Plot was purchased from DLF Ltd. in 1972 by defendant Nos. 1 & 2. ..... 15. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 taking the benevolent love and affection of Ravinder Khanna took advantage and got the property registered jointly in the name of defendant No.1 & 2. Sale Deed was executed and Registered in their name who represented Ravinder Khanna in fiduciary capacity as trustee. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 spent time towards construction of house. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 got title of house in fiduciary capacity/as trustee/ as parents of Ravinder Khanna being his parents. Property No.M-174 thus is stated to be joint property of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the one part and Ravinder Khanna-defendant No.3 on the other part. No other person except Ravinder Khanna contributed any amount whatsoever either towards purchase of plot or towards construction of plot or in furnishing of house." and which is a plea of benami and the defendant No.3/counter-claimant Ravinder Kha....