{"id":111210,"date":"2009-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-24T04:33:35","modified_gmt":"2016-02-23T23:03:35","slug":"smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.B.Gupta<\/div>\n
*      HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI\n\n                   FAO No.448 of 2001\n\n%            Judgment reserved on:,21st July, 2009\n\n             Judgment delivered on: 7th August, 2009\n\nSmt. Satrupa Aggarwal\nR\/o 3\/90, Roop Bhawan\nNehru Street, Vishwas Nagar,\nShahdara, Delhi                            ....Appellant\n\n                      Through:    Ms. Saahila Lamba.\n\n                  Versus\n\n    1. Sh. Nath (HUF)\n       Through is Karta Shri Sri Nath\n       R\/o 36, Hanuman Road,\n       New Delhi.\n\n    2. Sh. Sri Nath\n       S\/o Late Krishan lal\n       R\/o 36, Hanuman Road,\n       New Delhi.\n\n    3. Sh. Prem Chander Soni\n       R\/o 38\/2, East Patel Nagar,\n       New Delhi\n\n    4. Sh. Brahm Dev Soni,\n       R\/o F73\/2, Kirti Nagar,\n       New Delhi.\n\n    5. Ms. Mini Kher\n       W\/o Rajesh Kher\n       R\/o 633, New Rajinder Nagar,\n       New Delhi.\n\n\nFAO No.448\/2001                                 Page 1 of 20\n    6. Ms. Niti Anand @ Niti Gupta\n      W\/o Sh. N. L. Anand,\n      R\/o R-633,\n      New Rajinder Nagar,\n      New Delhi.\n\n   7. Sh. Narinder Lal Anand\n      S\/o Late N. R. Anand.\n      R\/o R-633, New Rajinder Nagar,\n      New Delhi.\n\n   8. Smt. Kamlesh Anand\n      W\/o Sh. Narinder Lal Anand,\n      R\/o R-633, New Rajinder Nagar,\n      New Delhi.\n\n   9. Sh. Asit Chiman Lal Mehta\n      R\/o E-82, Kirti Nagar,\n      New Delhi.\n\n  10. Dr. (Mrs.) Chanda Seth,\n      R\/o B-2\/11, Vasant Vihar,\n      New Delhi.\n\n  11. Sh. Gurucharan Singh Chalwal,\n     R\/o J-6\/102, Rajinder Nagar,\n     New Delhi.\n\n  12. Sh. Ravinder Singh Chawla\n     R\/o J-6\/102, Rajinder Nagar,\n     New Delhi.\n\n  13. Master Aseem Goel\n     Through his father and natural\n     Guardian.\n     R\/o 6, New Cloth Market,\n     Rajinder Nagar, Bhatinda          ...Respondents\n\n                         Through: Nemo\n\n\nFAO No.448\/2001                             Page 2 of 20\n Coram:\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                       Yes\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                    Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n   in the Digest?                                        Yes\n\nV.B.Gupta, J.\n<\/pre>\n
      Present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule (1)<\/p>\n
read with Section 104 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n
(for short as \u201eCode\u201f), against order dated 2nd June, 2001,<\/p>\n
passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which<\/p>\n
applications filed by appellant under Order IX Rule 13 and<\/p>\n
order XXII Rule 10, of the Code, were dismissed.<\/p>\n
2.    Brief facts are that, on 19th January, 1989, respondent<\/p>\n
nos. 1 and 2 herein, filed a suit for declaration and<\/p>\n
perpetual injunction against M\/s D.K.G. Finance and Chit<\/p>\n
Fund Private Ltd. (for short as \u201eM\/s D.K.G.\u201f)<\/p>\n
3.    Case of respondents before trial court was that, they<\/p>\n
had purchased property no. 36, Hanuman, Road, New<\/p>\n
Delhi, vide registered sale deed dated 17th December,<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                    Page 3 of 20<\/span>
\n 1963. Since that date, they had been using and enjoying<\/p>\n
the space of land and common road (pathway) to reach<\/p>\n
Hanuman lane, without any interruption.<\/p>\n
4.    In February, 1988, M\/s D.K.G., blocked three feet<\/p>\n
wide passage running along with back side of the wall of<\/p>\n
respondents\u201f house, which damaged their property and<\/p>\n
also effected their right of easement.<\/p>\n
5.    M\/s D.K.G. were duly served for 18th October, 1989<\/p>\n
and their counsel put in its appearance, when the case was<\/p>\n
pending before this Court. Subsequently, the case was<\/p>\n
transferred to District Judge, who assigned it to Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge. That court issued notice to M\/s D.K.G. as<\/p>\n
well as its counsel. Service upon M\/s D.K.G. was effected<\/p>\n
through pasting, while its counsel remained unserved. Vide<\/p>\n
order    dated    14th   September,   1994,   M\/s   D.K.G    was<\/p>\n
proceeded ex-parte.\n<\/p>\n
6.    On 10th September, 1996, it was observed by the trial<\/p>\n
court that M\/s D.K.G, could not be proceeded ex-parte,<\/p>\n
since, they had been served by way of pasting at G-56,<\/p>\n
Green Park, New Delhi, whereas, in written statement it<\/p>\n
is stated that M\/s D.K.G. no longer resides at the address<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                      Page 4 of 20<\/span>
\n given in the plaint. The address filed by M\/s D.K.G is 42-<\/p>\n
B, Hanuman Lane, New Delhi.          Hence, court notice was<\/p>\n
ordered to be issued at 42-B, Hanuman Lane, New Delhi<\/p>\n
for 29.11.1996.\n<\/p>\n
7.    On 29.11.1996, court notice was not received back, as<\/p>\n
such, fresh court notice was ordered to be issued for 30th<\/p>\n
January, 1997. On 30th January, 1997, trial court passed the<\/p>\n
following order:\n<\/p>\n
      ” 30.1.1997<\/p>\n
             Present:   Counsel for plaintiff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Notice sent to defendant received back<\/p>\n
             with the report that presently no such firm<\/p>\n
             exists at the given address. Similarly, the report<\/p>\n
             was on the notice sent for the date 29th of Sept.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             1996. Deft. had already been proceeded ex-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             parte and the case was ordered to be fixed for<\/p>\n
             ex-parte evidence and arguments. It is on 10 th<\/p>\n
             Sept. 1996 that the Ld.     Predecessor ordered<\/p>\n
             fresh service at fresh address 42-B, Hanuman<\/p>\n
             Lane, New Delhi. At this address also deft. does<\/p>\n
             not resides. This was the address furnished by<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                      Page 5 of 20<\/span>
\n              the deft. himself.   Defendant himself has not<\/p>\n
             cared to put in appearance despite the fact that<\/p>\n
             the case was very much in his knowledge since<\/p>\n
             the written statement is very much on record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  In these circumstances the defendant is<\/p>\n
             ordered to remain ex-parte as before.    Let the<\/p>\n
             case be adjourned for arguments to 3.3.1997.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.    Thereafter, vide judgment dated 3rd May, 1997, an ex-<\/p>\n
parte decree was passed for declaration and mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and against<\/p>\n
M\/s D.K.G.\n<\/p>\n
9.    On 4th September, 1998, present appellant as well as<\/p>\n
respondent nos. 3 to 13, filed applications under order IX<\/p>\n
rule 13, under order XXII rule 10 and under order 1 rule 10<\/p>\n
of the Code. Vide impugned order, these applications were<\/p>\n
dismissed. Appellant who was one of the applicants, alone<\/p>\n
had filed the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
10. In these applications, it was stated that a hole was<\/p>\n
made in the wall of property bearing no. 42-B, Hanuman<\/p>\n
lane, New Delhi and a police complaint was lodged about<\/p>\n
the demolition of portion of the wall. On enquiries from<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                    Page 6 of 20<\/span>
\n police it transpired that execution of Court order has taken<\/p>\n
in pursuance of the decree passed in a suit filed by<\/p>\n
respondent no. 1, against M\/s D.K.G, but particulars of the<\/p>\n
suit were not disclosed to the applicants. The applicants<\/p>\n
continued to make efforts and came to know of the present<\/p>\n
suit. On inspection of relevant file it transpired that   M\/s<\/p>\n
D.K. G. had sold different portions of property constructed<\/p>\n
on plot no. 42-B, Hanuman Lane, New Delhi to different<\/p>\n
persons by virtue of registered sale deed executed at<\/p>\n
different times. Present appellant had purchased space no.<\/p>\n
105, on first floor of property No. 42-B, Hanuman Lane,<\/p>\n
New Delhi, on 2nd February, 1990.      M\/s D. K. G did not<\/p>\n
inform about pendency of any suit or proceedings, to any of<\/p>\n
the applicants.   Had it informed the applicants about<\/p>\n
pendency of the suit, the applicants ought to have moved<\/p>\n
an application as required. In none of the sale deed, M\/s<\/p>\n
D.K. G had pointed out about the pendency of any suit. It<\/p>\n
is evident that portion of the property had already been<\/p>\n
transferred, prior to the service of summons upon to M\/s<\/p>\n
D.K.G.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                   Page 7 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 11.   Notice of these applications were issued to the<\/p>\n
respondents, and initially counsel appeared on behalf of<\/p>\n
respondents no. 1 & 2.\n<\/p>\n
12.   On 18th March, 2008, counsel for appellant appeared<\/p>\n
but nobody on behalf of respondents was present and<\/p>\n
matter was ordered to be listed in due course.<\/p>\n
13.   Again, on 21st July, 2009, none appeared on behalf of<\/p>\n
respondents. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for<\/p>\n
appellant have been heard.\n<\/p>\n
14.   It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that<\/p>\n
on 29th July, 2008, appellant got knowledge that “some<\/p>\n
decree” had been passed in respect of the property owned<\/p>\n
by her when a court bailiff came to her premises to execute<\/p>\n
the decree. Thereafter, appellant made enquiries and got<\/p>\n
knowledge         about   the   particulars   of   decree.   On    4th<\/p>\n
September, 1998, appellant filed the present application.<\/p>\n
The reasoning of trial court that appellant has no locus<\/p>\n
standi is in contradiction to the dictum laid down by<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Sardari Lal &                      Ors.<\/p>\n
(2004) 2 SCC 601.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                          Page 8 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 15.   Other contention is that exact particulars of the case<\/p>\n
and decree were not known to the appellant on 28th July,<\/p>\n
1998, but she had the vague knowledge of the passing of<\/p>\n
decree dated 3rd May, 1997. Thus, limitation for filing of<\/p>\n
application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, cannot be<\/p>\n
said to have started running from said date. On this point,<\/p>\n
reliance has been put on a case decided by Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
reported as Panna Lal Vs.             Murari Lal AIR 1967 SC<\/p>\n
1384.\n<\/p>\n
16.   Another contention is that, it is evident from record<\/p>\n
that predecessor-in-interest of appellant was not properly<\/p>\n
served by the transferee court and as such there are<\/p>\n
sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex-parte decree.<\/p>\n
17.   Before      delivering   with    the   contentions   of   the<\/p>\n
appellant, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant<\/p>\n
provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to the<\/p>\n
present case.\n<\/p>\n
18.   Article 123 of       Limitation Act,       provides for 30<\/p>\n
days time for filing such an application, it reads as under:<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________
\nDescription of application Period of        Time from which<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                        Page 9 of 20<\/span>
\n                                Limitation  period begins to
\n                                            run
\n____________________________________________________________
\nTo set aside a decree          Thirty days The date of decree
\npassed ex parte or to                       or where the sum-\n<\/p>\n
re-hear an appeal decreed                   mons or notice
\nor heard ex parte.                          was not duly serv-\n<\/p>\n
                                            ded, when the<\/p>\n
                                            applicant had<\/p>\n
                                            knowledge of<\/p>\n
                                            decree.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Explanation: For the
\nthe purpose of this article,
\nsubstituted service under
\nrule 20 of Order V of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure,
\n1908 (5 of 1908) shall not
\nBe deemed to be due service.\n<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
In view of this provision, application for setting aside ex<\/p>\n
parte decree must be filed within 30 days, either from the<\/p>\n
date of decree or where the summons or notice were not<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                       Page 10 of 20<\/span>
\n duly served, from the date when the applicant had<\/p>\n
knowledge of the decree.\n<\/p>\n
\nSupreme Court in Sunil Poddar and others v. Union<\/p>\n
Bank of India, AIR 2008 SC 1006 held;\n<\/p>\n
\n“18.       Accepting the recommendations of the Law
\n           Commission, the rule was amended by the
\n           Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
\n           1976. Rule 13 of Order IX with effect from
\n           February 1, 1977 now reads thus;\n<\/p>\n
           13.    Setting   aside        decree   ex   parte
\n           against defendant-In any case in which a
\n           decree   is   passed     ex    parte   against   a
\n           defendant, he may apply to the Court by
\n           which the decree was passed for an order to
\n           set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that
\n           the summons was not duly served, or that he
\n           was prevented by any sufficient cause from
\n           appearing when the suit was called on for
\n           hearing, the Court shall make an order
\n           setting aside the decree as against him upon
\n           such terms as to costs, payment into Court
\n           or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall
\n           appoint a day for proceeding with the suit;<\/p>\n
           Provided that where the decree is of such a
\n           nature that it cannot be set aside as against<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                         Page 11 of 20<\/span>
\n            such defendant only it may be set aside as
\n           against all or any of the other defendants
\n           also:\n<\/p>\n
           Provided further that no Court shall set
\n           aside a decree passed ex parte merely
\n           on the ground that there has been an
\n           irregularity in the service of summons,
\n           if it is satisfied that the defendant had
\n           notice of the date of hearing and had
\n           sufficient time to appear and answer the
\n           plaintiff’s claim.\n<\/p>\n
           Explanation.-Where         there   has    been      an
\n           appeal against a decree passed ex-parte
\n           under this rule, and the appeal has been
\n           disposed of on any ground other than the
\n           ground that the appellant has withdrawn the
\n           appeal, no application shall lie under this
\n           rule for setting aside that ex parte decree.
\n           (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
19.           It   is,   therefore,   clear   that   the   legal
\n      position under the amended Code is not whether
\n      the defendant was actually served with the
\n      summons in accordance with the procedure laid
\n      down and in the manner prescribed in Order V
\n      of the Code, but whether (i) he had notice of the
\n      date of hearing of the suit; and (ii) whether he<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                             Page 12 of 20<\/span>
\n       had sufficient time to appear and answer the
\n      claim, of the plaintiff. Once these two conditions
\n      are satisfied, an ex parte decree cannot be set
\n      aside even if it is established that there was
\n      irregularity in service of summons. If the Court
\n      is convinced that the defendant had otherwise
\n      knowledge of the proceedings and he could have
\n      appeared and answered the plaintiff’s claim, he
\n      cannot put forward a ground of non service of
\n      summons for setting aside ex parte decree
\n      passed against him by invoking Rule 13 of Order
\n      IX of the Code. Since the said provision applies
\n      to   Debt   Recovery   Tribunals   and   Appellate
\n      Tribunals under the Act in view of Section
\n      22(2)(g) of the Act, both the Tribunals were
\n      right in observing that the ground raised by the
\n      appellants could not be upheld. It is not even
\n      contended by the appellants that though they
\n      had knowledge of the proceedings before the
\n      DRT, they had no sufficient time to appear and
\n      answer the claim of the plaintiff-bank and on
\n      that ground, ex parte order deserves to be set
\n      aside.”\n<\/p>\n
19.   As per record, court notice to M\/s D.K.G as well as<\/p>\n
their counsel was issued. The same was served upon the<\/p>\n
counsel, but he did not appear after the case was<\/p>\n
transferred to District court despite direction given by this<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                    Page 13 of 20<\/span>
\n Court, vide order dated 17.8.1993 to appear before the<\/p>\n
District court on 1.10.1993. Even after affixation of the<\/p>\n
court notice on the address given by M\/s D.K.G in its<\/p>\n
written statement, no one appeared on its behalf.<\/p>\n
20.    In these circumstances, limitation has to run from<\/p>\n
the service of notice, if the appellant had to move for<\/p>\n
setting aside the decree. However, appellant who was<\/p>\n
otherwise not defendant in the suit, filed in the trial court,<\/p>\n
filed application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code,<\/p>\n
pleading     knowledge   on   a   particular   date.   In   entire<\/p>\n
application, nothing has been pleaded with regard to as to<\/p>\n
when appellant got the knowledge, regarding the pendency<\/p>\n
of the suit or execution. Relevant portion of the application,<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “1. That a hole was made in the wall of the
\n           property bearing No. 42-B, Hanuman Lane,
\n           New Delhi. A police complaint was lodged
\n           about the demolition of portion of the wall in
\n           the form of hole made therein. On inquiries
\n           from the police it had transpired that the
\n           execution of court order has been taken in
\n           pursuance of the decree passed in a suit
\n           filed by one Shri Sri Nath against M\/s D.K.G.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                        Page 14 of 20<\/span><\/p>\n
            Finance & Chit Fund Private Ltd. but the
\n           particulars of the suit were not disclosed to
\n           the applicants.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2. That the applicants continued to make the
\n           efforts and also to contact M\/s D.K.G.
\n           Finance & Chit Fund Private Ltd. Lastly the
\n           applicants came to know of the filing of the
\n           present suit by Shri Sri Nath for the
\n           purposes      of    inspection,   the   applicants
\n           assigned the case of the counsel.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           3. That the applicants came to know of the
\n           ex-parte decree passed by this Hon\u201fble
\n           Court in the above noted suit and the
\n           execution proceedings having taken place in
\n           pursuance of ex-parte decree on inspection
\n           of     the   file   conducted     by    applicants\u201f
\n           counsel.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21.   Appellant in its entire application, miserably failed to<\/p>\n
mention about her knowledge, regarding the pendency of<\/p>\n
the execution petition. Contents of the application clearly<\/p>\n
shows that the appellant came to know about the execution<\/p>\n
of the decree only on the date when a hole was made in the<\/p>\n
wall of the property bearing no. 42-B, Hanuman Lane, New<\/p>\n
Delhi. The demolition was done on 29th July, 1998, which<\/p>\n
has been mentioned by respondents no. 1 & 2 in their<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                          Page 15 of 20<\/span>
\n reply, and the same has not been controverted by appellant<\/p>\n
in her rejoinder.\n<\/p>\n
\nSupreme Court, in Mahabir Singh v. Subhash and<\/p>\n
others, AIR 2008 SC 276 while dealing with provisions<\/p>\n
of order IX rule 13 of the Code held:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “Thus, even      assuming for       the    sake      of
\n           argument that no proper step was taken by
\n           the appellant herein for service of summons
\n           upon the respondent and\/or the service of
\n           summons was irregular, evidently, it was for
\n           the defendant-respondent to establish as to
\n           when he came to know about the passing of
\n           the ex parte decree. Even in his cross-
\n           examination,     the   first    respondent         has
\n           categorically     admitted       that     he       had
\n           approached the appellant herein for not
\n           giving effect thereto one and half year prior
\n           to filing of the application, and, thus, he
\n           must be deemed to have knowledge about
\n           passing of the said ex parte decree. The
\n           period   of     limitation     would,     thus,      be
\n           reckoned from that day. As the application
\n           under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil
\n           Procedure was filed one and a half year
\n           after the first respondent came to know
\n           about passing of the ex parte decree in the<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                              Page 16 of 20<\/span>
\n            suit, the said application evidently was
\n           barred by limitation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
22.   In the present case, appellant has not specified as to<\/p>\n
on which date, she came to know about passing of the ex<\/p>\n
parte decree. The application is vague and does not give<\/p>\n
any detail or particulars. In this regard trial court<\/p>\n
observed;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            \"Accordingly,       I    find    that       it   was       on\n           29.7.1998,     the       applicants      had       got     the\n           knowledge        regarding             the        execution\n<\/pre>\n
           proceedings in pursuance of the decree
\n           passed    by    the       court    against         the     JD.\n<\/p>\n
           Accordingly, in view that Article 123 of the
\n           Limitation Act, the application for setting
\n           aside the ex-parte decree must have been
\n           filed within 30 days from the date of such
\n           knowledge of the applicants. Though, the JD
\n           was duly served with the notice and he had
\n           filed the WS and at the same time he was
\n           having knowledge regarding the date of
\n           appearance before the Ld. District Judge, as
\n           per the directions of the Hon\u201fble High Court
\n           and at the same time he was also served
\n           through   his    counsel          to    appear       on      a
\n           particular date. Even assuming that the
\n           limitation has to run from the date of<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                                     Page 17 of 20<\/span>
\n            knowledge in respect of moving the present
\n           application,   I   find   that   the    present
\n           application that has been filed on 4.9.98 was
\n           filed after the expiry of the period of
\n           limitation of 30 days from the date of such
\n           knowledge on 29.7.98. No cause much less
\n           than sufficient cause has been explained in
\n           the entire application for explaining the
\n           delay in filing the said application falling
\n           within any of the provisions contained u\/s 4
\n           to 24 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, I
\n           find that the present that the present
\n           application moved by the applicants on
\n           4.9.98 for aside the decree dt. 3.5.97, is
\n           hopelessly barred by limitation.”\n<\/p>\n
23.   So, apparently if it is assumed that appellant came to<\/p>\n
know only on 29th July 1998 about the ex parte decree<\/p>\n
having been passed in this case, even then the present<\/p>\n
applications are barred by period of limitation.<\/p>\n
24.   Coming to the case of Raj Kumar (Supra) as cited by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for appellant, there is no dispute about the<\/p>\n
principle of law enunciated in this case. However, the facts<\/p>\n
of Raj Kumar (Supra) are all together different.<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                      Page 18 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 25.   In Raj Kumar (Supra) case, the purchaser was not<\/p>\n
aware of the pendency of the suit, but the vendor stated in<\/p>\n
the sale deed that the property was not a subject matter of<\/p>\n
any litigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26.   In the present case, the appellant who is the alleged<\/p>\n
purchaser of the property, has not placed on record copy of<\/p>\n
the sale deed so as to show that vendor in its sale deed has<\/p>\n
not stated that property sold to the appellant, is not a<\/p>\n
subject matter of any litigation. As such Raj Kumar (Supra)<\/p>\n
is not applicable to the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n
27.    As far as other judgments as cited by learned counsel<\/p>\n
for appellant are concerned, the same are not applicable to<\/p>\n
the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
28.   Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the<\/p>\n
impugned order passed by the trial court.<\/p>\n
29.   The present appeal is not maintainable and thus, the<\/p>\n
same is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
30.   No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2001                                       Page 19 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 31.      Trial court record be sent back.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7th August, 2009                            V.B.GUPTA, J.\nbhatti\n\n\n\n\nFAO No.448\/2001                                     Page 20 of 20<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009 Author: V.B.Gupta * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO No.448 of 2001 % Judgment reserved on:,21st July, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 7th August, 2009 Smt. Satrupa Aggarwal R\/o 3\/90, Roop Bhawan Nehru Street, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi ….Appellant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-23T23:03:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-23T23:03:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3047,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-23T23:03:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-23T23:03:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-23T23:03:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009"},"wordCount":3047,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009","name":"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-23T23:03:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-satrupa-aggarwal-vs-sh-nath-huf-ors-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Satrupa Aggarwal vs Sh. Nath (Huf) & Ors. on 7 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=111210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111210\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}