Delhi District Court
Sunita Shrivastava vs Anita Shrivastava on 14 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS GARG, DISTRICT
JUDGE-05 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 831/17
CNR No. DLET01-012434-2017
Ms. Sunita Shrivastava
D/o Mr. Rattan Lal Shrivastava
R/o House No. K-68, Gali No. 4
Old Govind Pura Extension
Parwana Road, Delhi-110051.
...........Plaintiff
Versus
Mrs. Anita Shrivastava
W/o Lt. Mr. Vinod Kumar Shrivastava
R/o Flat No. 281-D, Pocket-II
Mayur Vihar Phase-I
Delhi-110091.
............Defendant
Date of Institution Suit : 10.11.2017
Date of Final Arguments : 12.07.2025
Date of Decision : 14.07.2025
Final Decision of the suit : Preliminary Decree
Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.07.14
16:15:43 +0530
CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 1 of 15
SUIT FOR PARTITION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS AND MESNE PROFIT
JUDGMENT
1. The present judgment deals with a suit seeking partition, permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and mesne profits.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AS PER PLAINT (AMENDED PLAINT AS FILED ON 18.09.2018) :-
Briefly, the essential facts and averments required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the plaint, are as follows:
2. The plaintiff ('Bhabhi') and the defendant ('Nanad') are co- owners of the suit property, each holding an equal half share, having jointly purchased the property through a registered sale deed and having taken possession thereof. By mutual consent, the property was initially rented out at ₹14,000/- per month. Pursuant to the advice of their maternal uncle, the existing tenant was made to vacate the premises, as the defendant required immediate accommodation.
It was mutually agreed between the parties that the defendant would compensate the plaintiff for her half share by contributing on a pro- rata basis an amount equivalent to the rent previously realized from the tenant. Accordingly, the defendant paid settlement charges at the Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.07.14 16:15:53 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 2 of 15 rate of ₹7,000/- per month from February 2012 to March 2015. However, she discontinued making these payments thereafter.
Differences began to arise between the plaintiff and the defendant in 2015. Despite repeated requests, the defendant showed no intention of vacating the plaintiff's half portion of the property. The situation escalated to the extent that the plaintiff had to make a police call on 25.04.2017. The defendant is currently in wrongful possession of the plaintiff's share in the suit property.
The plaintiff made multiple demands and requests on various occasions for the vacation of her share. In response, the defendant threatened to alienate the entire suit property to a third party. Consequently, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree for partition, permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and mesne profits.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
Briefly, the essential facts and averments required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the Written Statement, are as follows:
3. The defendant submits that the plaintiff has concealed material facts. The suit has not been properly valued, and an insufficient court fee has been affixed. Furthermore, the suit has Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.07.14 16:16:06 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 3 of 15 neither been signed nor verified in accordance with the applicable rules.
It is submitted that in the year 2017, an agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the defendant in the presence of Sh. Nitin Shrivastav and Sh. Arun Shrivastav, wherein it was agreed that the plaintiff's share in the suit property would be adjusted against the share of the defendant and her children in the property bearing No. K-68, Gali No. 4, Old Govind Pura, near Baldev Park, Delhi-110051. It was further agreed between the parties that any shortfall on either side would be adjusted with mutual consent.
The contents of paragraph 1 of the plaint are admitted. It is also admitted that peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property had been handed over to the present parties. However, the defendant denies the remaining contents of the plaint and prays that the present suit be dismissed.
REPLICATION:-
4. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of defendant wherein she denied the submissions of the defendant as contained in the written statement and has reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
ISSUES:-
5. Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 28.01.2020:Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.07.14 16:16:15 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 4 of 15
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of partition of the suit property and if so to shares are the parties entitled? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for rendition of accounts? OPP
3. Relief.
No other issue was raised or pressed, nor was any objection raised regarding the onus of proof at that stage.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
6. The plaintiff, Ms. Sunita Srivastava, appeared as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein she reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. She placed reliance on the following documents:
1. Ex. PW1/1 - Certified copy of sale deed dated 02.06.2011.
2. Ex. PW1/2 - Copy of disclaimer deed dated 31.08.1994.
3. Mark PW1/3 - Copy of agreement to sell in favour of Anita and Sunita.
PW-1, Ms. Sunita Srivastava, was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff further examined Sh. Sardar Gurucharan Singh as PW-2, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A). The contents of his affidavit are reproduced below:
Digitally signedVIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.07.14 16:16:24 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 5 of 15
"1. That I am deposing in the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff for Partition, Permanent Injunction, Rendition of Account and Mesne Profits as filed by the plaintiff.
2. That the plaintiff is the 'Nanad' of the defendant, the wife of the deceased brother of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff expired on 25/07/1973 leaving behind the widow Mrs. Prem Wati, three sons and two daughters.
3. That I further depose that in the year 1994, I purchased the property from the mother of the plaintiff which is the subject matter of the present Disclaimer Deed.
4. That I depose that the Disclaimer Deed dated 31/08/1994 was executed in my presence bearing my signature as a witness to the execution of the said document.
5. I state that the husband of the defendant herein namely Late Vinod Kumar Srivastava has executed the aforesaid document of the Disclaimer Deed in favor of his mother namely Mrs. Prem Wati W/o Late R. L. Srivastava disclaiming that on receiving of full and final share in the said property he has left with no other right in all kinds of movable and immovable properties of his mother.
6. That I state that the second party of the Disclaimer Deed namely Mrs. Prem Wati W/o Late R. L. Srivastava had less trust on her eldest son i.e., the first party of the present Disclaimer Deed namely Late Vinod Kumar Srivastava and Mrs. Anita Srivastava W/o Late Vinod Kumar Srivastava, the defendant herein and only with a view to obviate any future dispute, the mother got executed the present Disclaimer Deed. I further state that the execution of Disclaimer Deed was also in my favor so as to obviate any dispute w.r.t. the purchasing of the property which is subject matter of the present Disclaimer Deed and is under my ownership.
VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.07.14 16:16:33 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 6 of 15
7. I state that that I disposed truly being a law-abiding citizen of the country and all the contents of the present evidence affidavit are true and correct."
PW-2 relied upon the Disclaimer Deed already exhibited as Ex. PW1/2. He was also subjected to cross-examination by learned counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff next examined Sh. Gulshan Kumar as PW-3. He deposed that the plaintiff is the sister of his friend, and the defendant is the wife of his friend. When shown document Ex. PW1/2, he stated that he was not aware of the said document.
At that stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff sought permission to cross-examine PW-3 during examination-in-chief, submitting that the witness was suppressing the truth. The request was heard and allowed.
During cross-examination, PW-3 stated:
"It is correct that I identify the photographs pasted at point X on the certified copy of sale / document Ex. PW1/1 are belongs to the plaintiff and defendant. I do not aware about the document Ex. PW1/2 and same was not executed in my presence."
Despite the opportunity being granted, PW-3 was not cross- examined by the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:-
Digitally signedVIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.07.14 16:16:40 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 7 of 15
7. In support of her defence, the defendant, Smt. Anita Srivastava, entered the witness box as DW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, marked as Ex. DW-1/A, wherein she reaffirmed the averments made in the written statement.
DW-1 was duly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
The defendant further examined Sh. Arun Srivastava as DW-2, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, marked as Ex. DW-2/A. The contents of his affidavit are as follows:
"1. That I am the cosine brother of the defendant and well aware about the facts of the case.
2. That the defendant and the plaintiff jointly purchase the flat in question i.e. B-71, B-Block, UFF, Shashi Garden, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091.
3. That the plaintiff is residing with her parents at House No. K-68, Gali No. 4, Old Govind Pura, Near Baldev Park, Delhi-110051 and after purchasing the said flat the defendant started residing the suit property with her family.
4. That the defendant is residing in the suit property being one of the co-owner of the suit property and there was no any arrangement/agreement to pay the rent to the plaintiff.
5. That it was mutually agreed between plaintiff and the defendant, that the defendant and her children having their share in the property bearing House No. K-68, Gali No. 4, Old Govind Pura, Near Baldev Park, New Delhi-110051 including other legal heirs namely Sheela Srivastava, Sh. Pramod Srivastava, Sudhir Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.07.14 16:16:51 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 8 of 15 Srivastava, Sunita Srivastava i.e. plaintiff and in the year 2017 in the presence of Nitin Srivastava and Deponent it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the share of the plaintiff in the suit property would be adjust against the share of the defendant and their children in property bearing House No. K-68, Gali No. 4, Old Govind Pura, Near Baldev Park, Delhi-110051.
6. That the defendant is residing in the suit property being the owner of the suit property as there was an Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to be adjusted their share as stated in foregoing para no. 5.
7. That there was no any threats were extended by the defendant to the plaintiff to vacate the suit property of to dispose off/alienate the entire suit property to third party.
8. That the statement of the defendant is true and correct."
DW-2 was also duly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS:-
8. Plaintiff's Arguments:
Learned counsel for the plaintiff advanced his arguments in line with the pleadings set out in the plaint. He read the plaint line by line and invited the court's attention to the admissions made by the defendant in the written statement, particularly those supporting the plaintiff's claims. He submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition along with other reliefs, including mesne profits.
Defendant's Arguments: Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.07.14
16:17:01 +0530
CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 9 of 15
Learned counsel for the defendant argued in accordance with the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant. It was contended that the plaintiff's claims are not maintainable and lack merit. He further submitted that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to substantiate the claim for mesne profits. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
9. I have carefully listened to and considered the arguments presented by both parties, thoroughly reviewed the records, and taken into account the relevant laws and precedents.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
10. All the issues raised are closely interconnected and interdependent, and are therefore being addressed collectively.
According to the plaintiff, the suit property was jointly purchased by both the plaintiff and the defendant by contributing their respective shares, and a sale deed was registered in their joint names. The plaintiff has sought partition of her half share and claimed other reliefs for the defendant's alleged wrongful possession.
The defendant has admitted that the suit property was jointly purchased by her and the plaintiff with respective contributions. In fact, the relevant contents of paragraph no. 1 (as under heading:
Facts Of The Case) in the amended plaint have been unequivocally admitted by the defendant in paragraph 1 of the reply on merits in her written statement. However, the defendant opposed the plaintiff's claim to half share on the basis of an alleged agreement VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.07.14 16:17:09 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 10 of 15 involving adjustment of the plaintiff's share in another property. The relevant portion of the written statement in this regard reads as follows:
"7) That the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment as the Plaintiff has concealed the very important fact that the Defendant and her children are having their share in the property bearing No. K-68 Gali No. 4 Old Govind Pura near Baldev park Delhi-110051 including other legal heirs namely Smt. Sheela Shrivastav and Sh. Pramod Shrivastav and Sh. Sudhir Shrivastav and Smt. Sunita Shrivastav (Plaintiff). It has been agreed between the plaintiff and Defendant in the year 2017 in presence of Sh. Nitin Shrivastav and Sh. Arun Shrivastav that the share of the Plaintiff in the suit property would be adjusted against the share of the defendant and their children in property bearing No. K-68 Gali No. 4 Old Govind Pura near Baldev park Delhi-110051. That it has also been agreed between the plaintiff and defendant that any shortfall on either side would be adjusted with mutual consent of the parties."
There is no merit in the defendant's resistance to the plaintiff's claim of half share. Firstly, the defendant has failed to prove the existence of such an agreement. No details have been provided regarding the date, place, or even the month of the alleged agreement--only the year "2017" has been vaguely mentioned, which is insufficient. Even DW-2 has not supplied any such specifics.
Secondly, even if such an agreement for adjustment is presumed to have been entered into between the parties, no suit for specific Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.07.14 16:17:19 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 11 of 15 performance has been filed. Moreover, without a registered document, any adjustment pertaining to immovable property is legally ineffective.
In view of the above, the alleged adjustment agreement cannot be taken into consideration. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to half share in the property.
With respect to other reliefs (i.e., rendition of accounts/mesne profits), the plaintiff has sought rendition of accounts, as stated in paragraph 14(b) of the plaint, which is reproduced below:
"(b) For the relief of rendition of accounts for loss of charges qua the half portion of the suit property from April, 2015 till February, 2018 i.e. 35 months @ Rs.7000 per month is equal to 2,45,000/-
(Rs. Two Lac Forty Five Thousand only); on which court fee of Rs. 4,735.20 rounded off to Rs. 4,800/- (Rs. Four Thousand Eight Hundred only) has been affixed."
The plaintiff claims ₹7,000/- per month based on half of the alleged rent said to have been received from a tenant. However, she failed to prove the existence of such tenancy. In the plaint, it is mentioned that after the property was purchased, it was rented out at ₹14,000/- per month. During cross-examination, however, the plaintiff admitted that no such tenant existed. The relevant portion of her cross-examination is reproduced as follows:
"............ It is correct that as there was no tenant in the suit property thats why I have not mentioned the name of tenant in my VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2025.07.14 GARG 16:17:27 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 12 of 15 plaint and my affidavit Ex. PW1/A and further not filed any rent agreement in respect of the same on the record ........."
The plaintiff has also stated in the plaint that the defendant was paying ₹7,000/- per month from February 2012 till March 2015, and thereafter, from 01.04.2015, stopped making any such payments, which remain unpaid. However, the defendant has denied the existence of any such arrangement and stated that she never paid any amount to the plaintiff towards rent for the suit property. The plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of any such arrangement for rent payment by the defendant for using her share.
Further, although the plaintiff claims that she demanded her share from the defendant before filing the suit, no such proof has been submitted. However, the service of summons in the present suit can be treated as a valid notice demanding the plaintiff's share. From that point, the defendant could have offered the plaintiff's share, but instead, she continued to resist the claim without any justifiable ground.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to occupation charges for her share in the suit property from the date the summons was received by the defendant.
As to the quantum of occupation charges, no concrete evidence has been led. The plaintiff's claim of ₹7,000/- per month has been disproven during her cross-examination. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, occupation charges are VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2025.07.14 GARG 16:17:35 +0530 CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 13 of 15 granted at a nominal rate of ₹2,500/- per month for the plaintiff's share in the property.
All the issues are decided accordingly.
RELIEF:
11. Based on the above discussion, the plaintiff's suit is decreed as follows:
A) A preliminary decree for partition of the suit property is passed, assigning the following shares:
● Ms. Sunita Shrivastava (Plaintiff): 1/2 share. ● Mrs. Anita Srivastava (Defendant): 1/2 share.
B) All parties are restrained from transferring, selling, mortgaging, leasing, or otherwise encumbering the suit property in any manner. This injunction shall remain in effect until final conclusion of the case.
C) Plaintiff is entitled to occupation charges at a nominal rate of ₹2,500/- per month for her share in the suit property, from 10.07.2019 (the date on which the summons was received by the defendant) until the date of the decree.
D) Plaintiff is also entitled to future simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said occupation charges from the date of decree until its realization.
VIKAS Digitally signed
by VIKAS GARG
Date: 2025.07.14
GARG 16:17:53 +0530
CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 14 of 15
12. Preliminary Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. Parties are directed to propose modes and methods for partitioning the suit property by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares specified in the preliminary decree.
14. Put up for further proceedings on 27.08.2025.
15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open court Digitally signed
on 14th July 2025 VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.07.14
16:18:00 +0530
(Vikas Garg)
District Judge-05 /EAST
KKD, Delhi- 14.07.2025
CS No. 831/17 Sunita Shrivastava Vs. Anita Shrivastava Page 15 of 15