Site Loader
Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004
Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004
Delhi High Court LexForti

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur |25th March 2020

Jaiveer Singh Virk Vs Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd

Facts:

  1. Plaintiff who is one the Maternal Great Grandson the deceased Sir Sobha Singh pvt ltd company which is the defendant registered far back in 1945 as a non-profit organisation for the welfare of deceased’s family and it is a company engaged in the real estate sector owned by the family and all the shareholders of the company are family members.
  2. In 1945 the deceased built a residential complex and it comprises of 84 flats arranged in 7 blocks and is named as Sujan Singh Park. The deceased dived all his properties to his five children at his lifetime.Sujan Singh Park was supposed to be a family space where each of his four sons and one daughter and their kids gets a flat but during 1947 non-family members were given accommodation.
  3. As the family extended allocation of flats between family members became an issue and they arrived at a conclusion by making an understanding that the flats will be allotted only up to fourth generation of the deceased and a board resolution in that regard has been made in 1990.Whenever a flat comes vacant the allocation will be given to the top most in the list of the family tree.
  4. After the death of two sons of deceased’s death Grandson of the deceased took charge as a head of the company and has been managing in regard with allocation and other aspects. The family tree allotment included 23 members of the family out of which the plaintiff is alone not been allotted with flat.
  5. Even after a mail sent by him ignoring the resolution made in 1990 the vacant flat has been allotted to defendant no 2 by the company and on repeated requests plaintiff has been assured that he will be allotted with a flat and on such assurance plaintiff not bothered about the allotment.
  6. Another flat fell vacant in the year of 2014, but not allotted to him. The plaintiff got legal notice issued to the defendant company for allocation of flat. The plaintiff had withdrawn the legal notice on receiving assurance in written form from the defendant company by a board resolution.
  7. Due to the delay in such allocation the plaintiff incurred a loss. The plaintiff seeks relief for the list as follows (a) allot flat no B.15 or the other alternative in D block.(b)cancellation of allotment of Flat B.15 to the defendant number 2. (c)Permanent injunctions from defendants with regard to third party interferences in allocation(d)Recovery of damages of 96,60,000/-

Defendants Arguments:

  1. It was pleaded that the plaint discloses no cause of action and it was also said that no board of resolution has been passed by board resolution in 1990.They had a list and it has been duly signed by 3 members which is depicted as 5 members and the list in any case is not a board resolution.
  2. The lease to defendant no 2 was given with the knowledge of the plaintiff and it was not contended by him. Merely half of the shares of the company were held by Sir Sobha Singh Charitable Trust. The plaintiff is not entitled to any equity as he and his family members were illegally the property of deceased. The plaintiff has been informed lot of times to vacate the property belonging to the trust and on failure of vacating they will not be allocated any flat in the company.
  3. One of the flats being selected for sale to generate revenue to meet expenses of the company and the company itself not paid any dividend to its share holders. Flat G.81 has been allotted to the defendant only if he vacates the illegal occupation of the deceased’s property located at Janpath, New Delhi.

Issues:

  • Whether the suit is not properly instituted by an authorised person, doesn’t disclose any cause of action, barred by limitation?
  • Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration decree as prayed or mandatory injunction or Decree of cancellation, permanent injunctions or damages if any?
  • And does the plaintiff have any interest in such property and if yes from when?

Judgement:

                    The court dismissed the case stating counsels for the plaintiff have been unable to lift the doubt which had arisen as to the maintainability of the suit. The suit on the basis of pleas in the plaint does not disclose any right in favour of the plaintiff to any of the reliefs claimed

Court dismissed the suit with costs of Rs.1 lacs each payable by the plaintiff to each of the two defendants.

Post Author: lexforti

Leave a Reply