Delhi District Court
Smt. Sheenu Arora vs Sh. Som Nath Bhutani on 2 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03, NORTHWEST DISTT.,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. : 579048/16
In the matter of:
Smt. Sheenu Arora
W/O Dr. Naveen Arora
R/O. 50, Block No. H/45,
Second Floor, Suvindha Kunj,
Pitam Pura, Delhi 110034
........ Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.Sh. Som Nath Bhutani S/o Lt. Sh. R.P. Bhutani R/o 50, Block No. H/45, Ground Floor, Suvidha Kunj, Pitampura, Delhi110034
2. Sh. Amit Bhutani S/o Sh. Som Nath Bhutani, R/o 50, Block No. H/45, Ground Floor, Suvidha Kunj, Pitampura, Delhi110034
3. Sh. Ankur Bhutani S/o Sh. Som Nath Bhutani R/o 50, Block No. H/45, First Floor, CS No. 579048/2016 Sheenu Arora Vs. Som Nath Bhutani & Ors. Page No. 1 of 7 Suvidha Kunj, Pitampura, Delhi110034 ........ Defendants Date of institution : 04.10.2016 Date on which judgment was reserved : 19.07.2022 Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 02.08.2022 EXPARTE JUDGMENT Suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction
1) By this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff.
2) In brief, the case of the plaintiff as per plaint is that plaintiff is residing along with her husband at B101, Tower Heights Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi and plaintiff is in the possession of the second floor of the plot no. 50, Block No. H/45, Suvindha Kunj, Pitampura, Delhi110034. The said property is a joint Hindu Family Property of which plaintiff is one of the coowner and is in the possession of the said property. Defendant no. 1 is the father of the plaintiff and defendants no. 2 & 3 are the brothers of the plaintiff who are also occupying the first floor of the said portion of the property. Initially, Lt. Sh. Sukh Dayal Bhutani, who is the great grandfather of the plaintiff was doing ancestral business in Pakistan.
(3) After his death his four sons namely, (1) Sh. R.P. Bhutani (father CS No. 579048/2016 Sheenu Arora Vs. Som Nath Bhutani & Ors. Page No. 2 of 7 of D1) (2) Sh. Ganga Ram Bhutani (3) Sh. Ramji Dass Bhutani(4) Sh. Satram Dass Bhutani inherited the rights of the land in lieu of the land left in Pakistan by their father and they all got claim in the form of land and house in District, Rohtak, Haryana. They all started doing agricultural business on the said land. In 1970, oral partition took place between them and they divided the said property in four parts. Thereafter Sh. R.P. Bhutani S/o Lt. Sh. Sukh Dayal had four sons and two daughters and he divided the same joint Hindu Family property into five parts one for himself and other 4 for his four sons and he also give enough jewellery and adequate cash to his daughters at the time of their marriage.
(4)Thereafter, Sh. R.P. Bhunani's two sons started a new business of Rubber namely, M/s Universal Rubber Factory, at Gali No. 9 Samaypur Badli from the said funds. Thus, new business was started by D1 (Sh. Somnath Bhutani) S/o Sh. R.P. Bhutani. After some time Defendant no. 1 was looking after the entire family business and he also treated the business income as joint family income. In the year 1980, from the joint funds D1 also purchased the Janta Flat in Ashok Vihar. Thereafter in the year 1998, an oral partition took place between D1 and his elder brother Sh. Dev Raj Bhutani in which the elder brother got the share of Pitampura property while D1 got the share of Samaypur Badli property and the house at Suvidha Kunj, Pitampura.
CS No. 579048/2016 Sheenu Arora Vs. Som Nath Bhutani & Ors. Page No. 3 of 7 (5)D1 being the Karta of the HUF purchased all the property in his name itself and doing the same family business . Plaintiff used to visit the said business shop and also provide assistance to D1 in the said business. The plaintiff joined the family business in the year 2000 even after her marriage. Thereafter, the janta flat which was purchased from the funds of family business was subsequently sold and the property no. 165 DU Block, Pitampura Delhi was purchased and after construction D1 and his family started living in that premises. That in the year, 1998 D1 sold the property no. 165 DU Block, Pitampura Delhi and purchased H. No. 50 Pocket No. H/45, Suvindha Kunj, Pitampura(hereinafter referred as the suit property). All the above mentioned property was purchased only for the sole benefit of the HUF. Property bearing no. 33,42, 43 situated at Samaypur Badli had been sold and plaintiff had already received her share in the Joint Family property in the form of cash.
(6)The plaintiff is in the possession of the Second Floor Portion of the H. No. 50 pocket 4/45 Pitam pura, D1 is in the possession of ground floor, D3 is in the possession of first floor and D2 is in the possession of the ground floor whenever he visits Delhi. Till date there is no partition by metes and bounds amount the HUF as neither the plaintiff nor the D1 to D3 has any right to transfer/sell the property of HUF. The plaintiff had requested the defendants on several occasion to partition the suit property and give her share in the CS No. 579048/2016 Sheenu Arora Vs. Som Nath Bhutani & Ors. Page No. 4 of 7 above mentioned joint family property however, D1 strongly rejected the request by stating that plaintiff has no right in H. No. 50 Pkt. H/4 5, Pitampura. It is further stated that D1 has the intention of transferring all the properties to the D2 and D3 i.e. to his sons. It is submitted that he has no right to sell, alienate, transfer, mortgage or create any third party interest in HUF property without the consent of other coowners. Hence, the present suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction was filed.
7)Summons of the suit were not served upon the defendants and WS was filed by them on 10.01.2017. In the WS, the D1 has denied the averments of the plaintiff, claiming that he is sole and absolute owner of the suit property as he had purchased the same from his own funds. The defendants also denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
(8)Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the WS of the defendants, wherein the plaintiff denied the averments of the defendants and reiterated her averments, as stated in the plaint.
(9)However, due to the non appearance of the defendants, they were proceeded against exparte on 07.03.2017 and present matter was adjourned for plaintiff evidence.
(10)In her evidence, the plaintiff examined Sh. Avdesh Kumar, Data Entry Operator from the Office of Sub Registrar, Sector 16, Rohini CS No. 579048/2016 Sheenu Arora Vs. Som Nath Bhutani & Ors. Page No. 5 of 7 who proved the GPA dt. 19.05.1998 as Ex. PW1/1 and a Conveyance deed dt. 21.07.2000 as Ex PW1/2. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined herself as PW2 and she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, which is exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. She relied upon the following documents in his evidence:
a) Copy of the site plan of the property Mark A.
b) The copy of agreement to sell dt. 19.05.1998 Mark B.
c) Copy of receipt Mark C.
d) Copy of receipts of LIC Policy Mark D. (Colly) In view of separate statement made on behalf of the plaintiff, PE was closed vide order dated 23.04.2019.
(11)I have already heard exparte arguments from Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and have perused the entire material available on record carefully.
( 12)It is alleged by the plaintiff that the suit property i.e. H. No. 50 Pocket H/45, Pitampura, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) is the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendants as the same was purchased by the D1 from the funds out of the Joint Family property. Hence, the plaintiff has sought declaration that she is part owner of the property and that the said property may be partitioned. In her evidence, the plaintiff proved a Conveyance Deed executed by one CS No. 579048/2016 Sheenu Arora Vs. Som Nath Bhutani & Ors. Page No. 6 of 7 Sh. Ram Chander in the favour of the D1 on 20.07.2000 as Ex. PW 1/2. Perusal of this document shows that the property has been transferred admittedly in the name of the D1. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the property was purchased by the D1 from the funds which he received on selling a property No. 165, DU Block, Pitampura, Delhi which was purchased from the Joint Family Funds. However, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to prove this fact. There is nothing on record to show that the funds which were used by the D1 to purchase the suit property came from the proceeds of the property No. 165, DU Block, Pitampura, Delhi which was in turn purchased from the Joint Family Funds.
(13) As per the Conveyance Deed Ex. PW1/2, the D1 is the sole owner of the property. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by her. Hence, the present suit is dismissed.
(14)File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 02.08.2022.
(RUCHIKA SINGLA) Addl. Distt. Judge03, NorthWest Distt., Rohini Courts, Delhi.
This judgment contains 7 pages and each page is checked and signed by me.
CS No. 579048/2016 Sheenu Arora Vs. Som Nath Bhutani & Ors. Page No. 7 of 7