NIRANJAN DAS PREM KUMAR Vs. NAVEEN GUPTA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Niranjan Das Prem Kumar
Click here to view full judgement.
Brahma Singh Verma, J. -
(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 13.5.2013 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 35 of 2012 and judgment and order dated 18.2.2013 passed in P.A. Case No. 49 of 2009 Naveen Gupta v. M/s. Niranjan Das Prem Kumar.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, according to the petitioner as narrated in the writ petition are, that Ramesh Kumar Gupta was owner and landlord of the disputed property. He died on 22.3.2004 leaving behind Naveen Kumar Gupta, Pawan Kumar Gupta, Vijay Kumar Gupta, Kamal Kumar Gupta and Radha Mittal, as legal representatives, who also became the joint owner of the premises in question. Smt. Radha Mittal, married daughter of Late Ramesh Kumar Gupta, by way of registered sale deed dated 18.8.2010 transferred her undivided 1/5th share in the property in favour of one Harish Mehta, who further by way of registered sale deed dated 26.11.2011, transferred his undivided 1/5th share in the property in dispute in favour of petitioner No. 2 Chandra Shekhar Bhutani. As per the sale deed, the purchaser who is in possession of the property will now continue to be in possession of the transferred share as owner of the property. Accordingly, the petitioner Chandra Shekhar Bhutani became joint owner of the undivided 1/5th share of the property with the respondent plaintiffs. Suit No. 524 of 1986 was instituted by Pawan Kumar S/o. Ramesh Kumar Gupta impleading his father Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Vijay Kumar Gupta and other two sons as defendants. The plaintiff Pawan Kumar Gupta sought a decree declaring the plaintiff as owner of the properties mentioned in Schedule A. Said suit was decreed on 10.10.1986. The petitioner contends that the property under the tenancy of the petitioners was into the share of Vijay Kumar Gupta who was a Lunatic (mentally disordered/challenged person).
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, a collusive suit bearing O.S. No. 368 of 2009 was filed by Naveen Kumar Gupta impleading Pawan Kumar Gupta, Vijay Kumar Gupta and Kamal Gupta as defendants; Vijay Kumar Gupta in whose share the disputed property had fallen was impleaded as defendant through Pawan Kumar Gupta. The petitioner contends that the aforesaid suit was filed by Naveen Kumar Gupta without seeking appointment of guardian for the mentally handicapped person under Order 32 C.P.C. The suit was decreed on 25.9.2009.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.