Petitioner having no locus standi, can’t challenge the subject matter in the court: Delhi High Court
Petitioner having no locus standi, can’t challenge the subject matter in the court. The same was propounded in the recent joint matter of, wherein 6 separate writ petitions were filed in furtherance to the above, namely:
- Rayrikh Sagar v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. [CM (M) 30/2021]
- Rayrikh Sagar v. Madhvi Sharma & Ors. [CM (M) 32/2021]
- Rayrikh Sagar v. Mohan Swaroop Aggarwal & Ors. [CM (M) 43/2021]
- Rayrikh Sagar v. Neetu Sharma & Ors. [CM (M) 45/2021]
- Rayrikh Sagar v. Lalitesh & Ors. [CM (M) 50/2021]
- Rayrikh Sagar v. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. [CM (M) 51/2021]
The case was heard on September 10th 2021, and the proceedings were presided by a single judge bench, consisting of Justice Asha Menon.
The comprehensive facts, pertinent to the case, are as follows. Petitioner, although not being a party to the suits, is aggrieved because according to him, that order by the former court affect his rights to the extent of 75% of the undivided share in the property bearing House No. 45, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
Respondents No.2 to 5 had become owners of 25% undivided share each in the said property, having purchased the same through a registered Sale Deed. Whereas, they also had an oral agreement to further develop the property with stilt level parking. Further the parties had entered into some agreements to sell the said property. The agreements to sell were not registered as per the Registration Act, 1908.
Subsequently, 3 of the respondents, also transferred 25% undivided share to petitioners. The petitioner by virtue of the transfer had 75 % undivided share in the suit property. The dispute arose in the pursuance of the above. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the plaintiff had entered into unregistered Agreements for transfer of one Flat but was now seeking restraint on the entire Suit Property. Secondly, without the petitioner being a party to the suits, his 75% share in the Suit Property was being adversely impacted.
The counsel on the behalf of the both the sides cited various precedents like Hari Singh v. Sub Registrar (1998) 120 PLR 787; Gurjeet Singh Madaan v. SubRegistrar-IX (District South-West), 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3868; Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 404; T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal, (2010) 14 SCC 370.
The court also placed its reliance on some of the crucial precedents involving the subject matter in Chandrika Singh v. Arvind Kumar Singh, (2006) 10 SCC 404; Radhakisan Laxminarayan Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi, (1961) 1 SCR 248 and Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh, (1969) 1 SCR 328.
The court, on analyzing the facts, hearing both the sides, upheld the judgment of the lower court and held that “the petitioner is challenging the right of the respondent No.1/plaintiff to any relief on grounds based on law as well as facts. These cannot be determined in these proceedings, where the only question that needs to be considered is whether the impugned orders are erroneous.” Further court also held that petitioners had no locus standi towards the said case and that the respondents, who had the locus standi, have appeared to challenge the order though it is clearly impacting them.