RFA (OS) 6493/2011 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA (OS) No.100/2011 % Date of Decision: September 16, 2011 DINESH KUMAR GOYAL ....Appellant Through Mr. Rakesh Kansal, Advocate. VERSUS AJAI KUMAR GOEL & OTHERS …..Respondents Through CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % SANJIV KHANNA, J. The appellant herein Dinesh Kumar Goyal and Ajai Kumar Goyal, Praveen Kumar Goel and Arun Kumar Goyal, respondents herein are brothers being children of late Dr. Shanti Swaroop Goyal and Lila Goyal. 2. Leasehold property no. A-68, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi was originally allotted in the joint names of late Dr. Shanti Swaroop Goyal and Pradeep Kumar Goyal. 3. Dr. Shanti Swaroop Goyal died inestate in July 2000 and was survived by Lila Goyal, the appellant and the three respondents. His daughter Usha Garg inherited interest in the property. However, she, along with Parveen Kumar Goyal, executed a Relinquishment Deed dated RFA (OS) 6493/2011 Page 2 of 3 2nd August 2000, which is registered with the Sub- Registrar, in respect of 50% share of Dr. Shanti Swaroop Goyal in favour of their mother Lila Goyal, the appellant and the 2 remaining respondents, Ajai Kumar Goyal and Arun Kumar Goyal. The appellant does not dispute the said Relinquishment Deed and is a beneficiary thereunder. 4. The appellant, the three respondents and the mother approached the DDA and got the property converted from leasehold to freehold vide Conversion/conveyance Deed dated 4th January 2002. The appellant admits and accepts this Conversion Deed. He is a signatory to the deed. 5. Late mother Smt. Leela Goyal had expired on 14th November, 2008. The respondents i.e. the three brothers rely upon her registered Will dated 1st February, 2007, in which she has bequeathed her 1/5th share in the aforesaid immoveable property in favour of the respondents and appellant. The appellant is, therefore, beneficiary of the said Will. 6. The appellant and one of the respondents are in occupation of the property, whereas the two brothers, who are also respondents herein, are not in occupation of the property. This is possibly the reason why the appellant wants to delay the proceedings. We do not think that the appellant can have any grievance against the impugned order/decree. RFA (OS) 6493/2011 Page 3 of 3 However, we clarify that in case any application is filed by Usha Garg in the suit, the same will be dealt with and examined in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed in limine without any order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 NA