Delhi District Court
Jscc /Ascj/Gj(Nw): District Courts : ... vs Vinod Kumar (Husband) on 24 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL:
JSCC /ASCJ/GJ(NW): DISTRICT COURTS : ROHINI DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : 02404C0080632010
Suit No. 155/10
In re:
1 Master Vipin(Minor son)
S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
2 Aarti (Minor Daughter)
D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
3 Master Sahil (Minor son)
S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
(All minors represented by
their natural guardian/ Mother
Smt. Meena) ............... Plaintiffs
Versus
Vinod Kumar (Husband)
S/o Sh. Balwan Singh
R/o Village Jatkhore,
Delhi110039
Also at
Sh. Vinod Kumar
Police Constable through
Superintendent of Police, CBI Anti Corruption Branch
GPOA, Kendriya Sadan, AWing, Akakurdi,
Pune411044 (Maharashtra) ...............Defendant
Master Vipin & Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 1of 4
EXPARTE JUDGMENT:
1 This is a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant
from creating any kind of third party interest in respect of property
comprising 1/8th share in Khasra No. 41/25/2, 43/10, 44/5, 44/6 at Village
Jatkhore, Delhi.
2 The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are minor sons of
defendant and they are filing the present suit through their mother Smt.
Meena being natural guardian.
3 It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that there is no
matrimonial disputes between the mother of the plaintiffs and the
defendant, however proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C have been initiated against
the defendant who has intentionally and deliberately neglected to maintain
the plaintiffs and their mother. That after death of the father of the
defendant Sh. Balwan Singh, the defendant has inherited share in ancestral
agricultural land in Khasra No. 41/25/2, 43/10, 44/5, 44/6 at Village
Jatkhore, Delhi to the extent of 1/8th share and also the house in village
Jatkhore. That by virtue of provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the
plaintiffs have become coparcenars in the above said properties. Further
that the defendant has not only failed to discharge his obligations to
maintain the plaintiffs, he is trying to dispose of his share in the above
mentioned properties without any right. Hence, this suit.
Master Vipin & Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 2of 4
4 The summons of the suit were issued to the defendant but he has
failed to appear despite being served. The defendant was proceeded ex
parte on 08.07.2010.
5 In support of the case, the mother of the plaintiffs has examined
herself as PW1. She has tendered her affidavit Ex.P1 with documents i.e,
Ration Card Ex.PW1/A, Election ICard Ex.PW1/B, Khatauni Ex.PW1/C,
Notice Ex.PW1/D and application dated 30.07.2009 Ex.PW1/E.
6 The plaintiff has also examined Sh. Shakti Singh, Halqa Patwari
as PW2 who deposed that defendant Vinod Kumar and his brother Ashok
Kumar are recorded owners to the extent of ¼th share in equal portions in
respect of Khasra No. 41/25/2 (30), 43/10 (416), 44/5 (416), 44/6 (66)
and 8/25 (416) total measuring 23 bighas and 16 biswas in the revenue
estate of village Jatkhore, Delhi. He tendered the Khatauni of the year
200607 as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B.
7 I have heard the counsel for plaintiffs and perused the record
carefully.
8 The testimonies of the PW's have remained unrebutted,
uncontroverted and unchallenged as the defendant has chosen to remain
exparte. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the witnesses
which are supported by the documents. In view of the unrebutted
testimonies of the plaintiff's witnesses and the documents placed and
proved on record and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is
Master Vipin & Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 3of 4
evident that the plaintiff has proved a case for the relief claimed in respect
of agricultural land as mentioned above but so far as contents of the plaint
qua right of the plaintiffs in residential house in village Jatkhore is
concerned, there is nothing on record to prove the same. No document of
any kind has been filed regarding the residential house. The material
available on record is not sufficient for proper identification of the
residential house.
9 In view of the above discussion, a decree for permanent
injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant
and the defendant is restrained from creating any kind of third party
interest in respect of properties comprising 1/8th share in Khasra No.
41/25/2, 43/10, 44/5, 44/6 at Village Jatkhore, Delhi. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Sanjay Jindal)
on 24.01.2012 JSCC/ASCJ(NW)
District Courts : Rohini : Delhi
Master Vipin & Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 4of 4
Suit No. 155/10
24.01.2012
Present. Plaintiffs with counsel.
Defendant exparte.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced in the open Court, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed and a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant and the defendant is restrained from creating any kind of third party interest in respect of properties comprising 1/8th share in Khasra No. 41/25/2, 43/10, 44/5, 44/6 at Village Jatkhore, Delhi. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly File be consigned to the Record Room.
( Sanjay Jindal ) JSCC/ASCJ(NW) Delhi:24.01.12 Master Vipin & Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 5of 4