K. S. Gupta ( 1 ) VASUMATI Agencies Pvt. Ltd, defendant No. 5 filed this application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking to add in the written statement additional pleas as under which is being contested by the plaintiff: - (1) At the time of creation of tenancy, defendant No. 5 had verified, on proof of documents furnished by Shri Lila Ram Dewan that the property was owned and constructed by him and stood mutated in his name. There was no mention of any HUF involved in the same or any reference to his sons having any interest of any kind in the suit property, during his lifetime. (2) Defendant No. 5 was further apprised that previously Shri Lila Ram Dewan had let out the second floor to a tenant and was receiving rent from him and on the vacation, the tenancy of the premises and been offered to defendant No. 5 by Shri Lila Ram Dewan himself. Accordingly for valuable consideration and on execution of a lease deed which was duly registered this defendant was inducted in possession as tenant in October, 1990 and is enjoying the said tenancy rights on payment of rent and on fulfilling the terms of the lease deed. Besides defendant No. 5 had no notice of any such alleged disputes between the father and sons at any material time. (3) Subsequent to the filing of the suit, this defendant has come to know that it would seem that during his life time, Shri Lila Ram Dewan, was either pressurized or compelled to bow to the schemes of his sons who appeared to have acted in unison with each other initially in their attempts at grabbing the property but later had fallen out when it came to division of spoils. There was, however, no legal, valid and proper transfer of rights of owner- ship from Shri Lila Ram Dewan to his sons and the story put forth about there being an HUF and the property bring joint Hindu family property is devoid of any substance and not borne out by records. His sons, including Chartered Accountants manipulated invalid and unenforceable documents to create their own interest, when they had no legal right in the property. His sons, including Chartered Accountants manipulated invalid and unenforceable documents to create their own interest, when they had no legal right in the property. (4) The sons, even though affirming the existence of a so-called family settlement, presumably a deed, however, do not claim rights through this settlement (without offering any explanation) which allegedly partitioned the. so called. HUF properties and separated the shares of the respective parties but on the basis of a so called award dated 16. 12. 1988. This document is on the face of it, non est for the simple reason that it being a partition award had to be executed on a stamp paper of requisite value required for partition of immovable properly. It is only on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 75. 00, the maximum value prescribed for a money award, while the award itself is in respect of the partition of two properties. Further, the sham and bogus nature of the so-called award is evident from the fact that it does not refer to any dispute but confirms that there was an alleged family arrangement (which clearly was not given effect to ). No rights can be claimed by the plaintiff in derogation of the established ownership rights of Shri Lila Ram Dewan, and consequently the letting out of the second floor by him cannot be challenged or the possession of the second floor claimed from bona fide tenant, contrary to the terms of the lease deed. (5) Defendant No. 5 submits that even a third party is entitled to challenge the ownership claims made by the plaintiff where its valuable rights are involved and it is the case of this defendant that neither any so-called and non-existent family settlement nor a sham and invalid award will affect its Valuable tenancy rights acquired from late Shri Lila Ram Dewan whose estate is and will remain bound by the said engagement. Shri Lila Ram Dewan was very much competent and empowered to induct defendant No. 5 as tenant and defendant No. 5 is not liable to be dispossessed from the demised premises as so called trespasser. Shri Lila Ram Dewan was very much competent and empowered to induct defendant No. 5 as tenant and defendant No. 5 is not liable to be dispossessed from the demised premises as so called trespasser. (6) Without prejudice to the other submissions, if it is held that there was a valid settlement or any rights were conferred on the plaintiff as claimed by him, then also it is stated that he and his brothers had empowered their father to manage the property and who had let out the second floor to defendant No. 5. The plaintiff is estopped from challenging the letting out of the premises to this defendant by his father. (7) Without prejudice to the other submissions, if it is held that the plaintiff obtained his rights through the so-called award which was made rule of the court, no separate suit is maintainable for the enforcement of the said rights and the suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. " ( 2 ) IN support of the amendments sought it was contended by Sh. Masud Mirza that it is open to defendant No. 5 to challenge the title of the plaintiff to suit property. On the other hand, submission advanced by Sh. Harish Malhotra for plaintiff was that defendant No. 2 was the Chartered Accountant of defendant No. 5 which is a Shell company and had knowledge of the suit property having fallen to the share of plaintiff; it is defendant No. 2 who is in physical occupation of suit property; rent of suit property at the time it was let out by Lila Ram Dewan to defendant No. 5 was much more than Rs. 1500. 00 per month and in terms of proposed amendments the defendant No. 5 seeks to challenge the award dated 16/12/1988 which was made rule of court by the order dated 11/08/1989 and it being a stranger, cannot challenge the said award and order in these proceedings. In support of the fact that defendant No. 2 was the chartered accountant of defendant No. 5 company, he invited my attention to the photostat copy of statement annexed with the Articles of Association of defendant No. 5 company filed alongwith the list of documents dated 13/03/1996 wherein name of defendant No. 2 as chartered accountant is shown under the column of name,. address and description of witness (s ). address and description of witness (s ). ( 3 ) TO appreciate the said submissions advanced on behalf of defendant No. 5 and plaintiff it is necessary to refer, in brief, to the averments made in plaint. It is alleged therein that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are the sons of late Lila Ram Dewan. ( 4 ) PREVIOUSLY there was Hindu undivided family of which Lila Ram was the karta and in the name of HUF, property No. D-54, Haus Khas and Shop No. 6, Panchsheel Market, New Delhi were acquired. Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Lila Ram died on 27/06/1988. After her death, to avoid any disputes afterwards Lila Ram Dewan expressed his desire to effect the settlement of properties. Accordingly, on 30/07/1988 a family. settlement was executed between the parties whereby it was settled that ground floor of said property No. D-54, Haus Khas shall belong to Lila Ram Dewan and defendant No. 1. Second floor of the said property would go to the share of plaintiff while first floor to defendants 2 and 3. Shop No. 6 Panchsheel Market shall be owned by defendant No. 4. In addition to that shop the defendant No. 4 was to be paid Rs. 3,20,000. 00 jointly by the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and Lila Ram Dewan. It is further pleaded that thereafter some disputes arose between the parties. Therefore, the matter was referred to Kishan Chand for arbitration. He made the award on 16/12/1988 and in suit being No. 106-A/89 filed in this court on 3/01/1989 the award was made the rule of court on 11/08/1989 after notice to the parties. It is staled that thereafter defendant No. 4 sold said Shop No. 6, Panchsheel Market and utilised the entire proceeds for his benefit and the award and decree had thus been acted upon. It is further alleged that the plaintiff at all material lime was willing to pay his share of Rs, 80,000. 00 to defendant No. 4 but for the reasons best known to him, he did not accept that amount. It is also pleaded that M. Tahir was the tenant in second floor of said property No. D-54, Haus Khas which came to the share of plaintiff. 00 to defendant No. 4 but for the reasons best known to him, he did not accept that amount. It is also pleaded that M. Tahir was the tenant in second floor of said property No. D-54, Haus Khas which came to the share of plaintiff. It came to the notice of plaintiff only in July 1991 that after second floor portion of property was vacated by M. Tahir, the same was illegally let out to defendant No. 5 by Lila Ram Dewan in collusion with defendants 1 to 4 under a lease deed dated 12/10/1990. It is asserted that Lila Ram had no authority in law to let out the said portion to defendant No. 5 and said lease deed is, therefore, not binding on plaintiff nor can it confer any interest or title in suit properly on defendant No. 5. Possession of defen-ss dant No. 5 is thus unauthorised. Decree of possession of second floor of said property No. D-54, Haus Khas etc. has been claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. ( 5 ) IN essence, in terms of proposed amendments, the defendant No. 5 seeks to challenge the award dated 16/12/1988 which was made the rule of court on 11/08/1989 in addition to raising the plea that plaintiff had authorised Lila Ram Dewan to manage suit property on his behalf and he is, therefore, estopped from challenging the letting in favour of defendant No. 5. In my opinion, the defendant No. 5 who was not a party to said award dated 16/12/1988 and also suit being No. 106-A/89 wherein that award was made the rule of court by the order dated llth August 1989, cannot challenge either the award or decree dated llth August 1989 Further, in the written statement dated 24/08/1992 filed by defendant No. 5, it did not specifically rebut the averment made in plaint the Lila Ram Dewan had no authority to let out suit property to it. In the suit the issues were framed on 22/01/1996 and in view of controversy being limited, the parlies were asked to file their affidavits within four weeks and case was ordered to be listed for cross-examination of the deponents of affidavits on 20/05/1996. This application came to be filed immediately thereafter by defendant No. 5. In the suit the issues were framed on 22/01/1996 and in view of controversy being limited, the parlies were asked to file their affidavits within four weeks and case was ordered to be listed for cross-examination of the deponents of affidavits on 20/05/1996. This application came to be filed immediately thereafter by defendant No. 5. Obviously, part of proposed amendments that plaintiff had authorised Lila Ram Dewan to manage suit property and he is thus estopped from questioning the letting of suit property to defendant No. 5, is mala fide and has been taken only with a view to delay the case. Amendments sought, therefore, deserve to be disallowed with costs. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the application is dismissed with Rs. 5,000. 00 as costs.