RALIA RAM KAPOOR Vs. KIRAN KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit 196/1996 (later renumbered as Suit No. 226/2018) was instituted by the petitioner Ralia Ram Kapoor (deceased) ("RRK" hereinafter) through his legal representatives against M/s DLF United Pvt. Ltd. (DLF) as Defendant 1 and Vijay Kapoor, the son of Ralia Ram Kapoor, as Defendant 2. It was averred, in the plaint forming subject matter of Suit 196/1996, that RRK was the owner, and in legal possession of Plot No. S-103, Greater Kailash-II which had been purchased by him from DLF, against payments made between 1959 and 1973. It was further averred in the plaint that though payment against purchase of the aforesaid property was thus made by RRK, a sale deed, dtd. 11/2/1974 was fraudulently executed by DLF. Fraud in execution of the said sale deed was also alleged in the plaint. The plaint, therefore, sought cancellation of the sale deed dtd. 11/2/1974 and also sought a direction to DLF to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, by incorporating the name of the petitioner in place of Defendant 2 Vijay Kapoor.

(2.) During the pendency of the suit, Respondent 1 Kiran Kapoor, the wife of Vijay Kapoor (Defendant 2 in the suit) moved an application under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 and Sec. 146 of the CPC, seeking to be impleaded in the suit in place of Defendant 2 Vijay Kapoor. The application was predicated on a Gift Deed dtd. 24/11/2009, whereby Vijay Kapoor was stated to have gifted the suit property to his wife Kiran Kapoor, i.e. the applicant before the learned Civil Judge and Respondent 2 in the present proceedings. Kiran Kapoor therefore, contended that Vijay Kapoor was left with no right, title or interest in the suit property and that she had become the absolute owner thereof.

(3.) Inasmuch as the gift deed had been executed pendente lite, during the currency of Suit 226/2018, Kiran Kapoor sought her impleadment as Defendant 2 in place of Vijay Kapoor, under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC.