Delhi District Court
Mr. Subhash Sahni vs Mr. Tarun Sahni on 28 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GULATI - II,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI
CS no. 184/18
1. Mr. Subhash Sahni
Son of Shri Chunnilal Sahni
Resident of 4A/26, 3rd Floor,
Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi110060,
Mobile no. 9811356664
2. Mr Saket Sahni
Son of Late Ramesh Chand Sahni
Resident of 4A/26, Ground Floor,
Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi110060.
Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Mr. Tarun Sahni
Son of Late Shyam Sunder Sahni
Resident of 4A/26, 2nd Floor,
Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi110060.
2. Mrs. Usha Sahni
Wife of Late Shyam Sunder Sahni
Resident of 4A/25, 2nd Floor,
Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi110060.
3. Mrs. Rajni Bhasin
Wife of Sh. Attet Bhasin
Daughter of Late Shyam Sunder Sahni
Resident of house no. B104,
Housing Board Colony,
Kohefiza, Bhopal
Madhya Pradesh.
4. Mrs. Sonia Sabharwal
Wife of Sh. Pradeep Sabharwal
Resident of 413/3, Mehrauli, Near Khari Kaun
New Delhi.
Defendants
ORDER
1. By this order, I shall dispose on an application u/o XII Rule 6 CPC seeking Judgment on admission.
2. The present case has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition of property bearing no. 114, Shankar Road Market, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi 110060, herein after referred to as the "Suit Property" stating that the plaintiff no. 1 and 2 are co owners of the suit property which had been purchased jointly by Plaintiff no.1, Late Shyam Sunder Sahni and Late Ramesh Chand Sahni in 1998, vide registered Sale Deed for a sale consideration of Rs.9 Lakhs. The suit property consists of three floors and a partnership business under the name and style of "M/s Peshawar Sweet Bhandar" is being run at the suit property.
3. It is further stated that Shyam Sunder Sahni expired on 13.11.2016 leaving behind his wife, son and two daughters i.e., defendant Nos. 1 to 4, respectively. It is also stated that Shri Ramesh Chander expired on 20.02.2009, leaving behind plaintiff No.2 and the wife of Late Ramesh Chander Sahni also expired on 05.09.2010.
4. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, father of defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and husband of defendant no. 2 had equal share in the suit property i.e. 33.33% share each in the suit property. Being joint owners of the suit property plaintiff are in possession/constructive possession/legal possession of the suit property. It is stated that plaintiff No.1 being senior citizen is not keeping up with his health, thus, wishes to take his share in the suit property.
5. Defendant No. 1 has temperamental differences with plaintiffs since expansion of partnership firm business in 2016 and is threatening to dispose the entire suit property and trying to create 3rd party interest without the knowledge and consent of plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff lodged a complaint before Rajinder Nagar, Police Station.
6. Defendant No. 1 has no right to transfer, alienate, sublet, assign or part with the possession or induct some one else in the suit property or create 3rd party interest in the suit property. Hence, the present suit.
7. In the written statement filed on behalf defendant no. 1 certain preliminary objections were taken that the suit filed is an abuse of process of law, bad due to misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties, plaintiff have not approached the court with clean hands and valuation of the suit has not been done properly. It is stated that by virtue of will dated 17.03.2015, of late Sh.Shyam Sunder Sahani, the defendant no 1 has become 33.33% owner of the suit property as share of Late Sh. Shyam Sundar Sahani stands bequeathed in his favour. A probate petition is stated to be pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is stated that the plaintiff were operating the restaurant without the approval, consent of defendant. Due to the illegal acts of plaintiff the first floor of the suit property has been sealed, which devalued the property and rendered the other floors completely useless. It is stated that plaintiff has sent a false and frivolous legal notice dated 23.08.2017 as "Notice for termination of license" to Ms. Krishna Anand and Ms. Neelam Anand which was replied vide legal notice dated 19.09.2017.
8. It is stated that vide legal notice dated 12.08.2017, the defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiffs to provide the books of accounts etc. which was never provided. Also a legal notice dated 12.08.2017 was served to "Mahesh Kumar & Co., Chartered Accountants"
who were handling the financial accounts of the partnership firm. However, no reply received. Various written communications were sent to plaintiffs by defendants alleging that plaintiffs were misappropriating the funds of the partnership firm. In para wise reply to the plaint, the averments made by the plaintiff were categorically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit with heavy cost is made.
9. The defendant no. 2 to 4 have filed their respective written statements giving no objections to the prayers made by the plaintiff.
10. Perusal of the record shows that the defendant no.1 had taken an objection to the present case on the premise of the pendency of a testamentary case being Test Case No. 26/2017 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in which the defendant no. 1 has propounded the WILL to claim share in the suit property. It is submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that in the said testamentary case the defendant no.1 is the petitioner therein and vide order dated 14.03.2022, the said test case was adjourned on settlement talks were going on between the parties. It is seen from the record that the defendant no.1 along with his counsel Mr. Rohit Puri (who is also representing D-1 before the Hon'ble High Court in Test Case No. 26/2017) had appeared on 06.12.2021 before this Court and a statement was made by the defendant no.1 that he has no objection if the suit property is partitioned in accordance with the prayers made by the plaintiff. The said statement is already on record and also the submission to that effect is recorded in order sheet dated 06.12.2021.
11. The Plaintiff has thus filed an application u/o XII Rule 6 CPC seeking passing of the judgment on admission.
12. Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the court to pass decree on admissions where the pleadings/documents filed by the parties shows that there are unambiguous, clear and unequivocal admissions.
13. The said provision u/o XII Rule 6 CPC is reproduced here under:
Judgment on Admission- 1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
14. The plaintiff has thus filed an application u/o XII Rule 6 CPC seeking passing of the judgment on admission.
15. Arguments heard and considered.
16. In the present case since the defendant no.1 who is the main contesting defendant has given his statement on oath before this Court on 06.12.2021 thereby according to his no objection as well as in view of the written statement filed by the defendant no. 2 to 4 also giving their respective no objections to the prayers made by the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court does not find any impediment in allowing the present application and determining the rights of the parties on the basis of the pleadings, the statement/admission of the defendant no. 1 and the admission of defendant no.2 to 4.
17. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and preliminary decree is passed declaring that the plaintiff no. 1 and 2 along with the defendants no 1 to 4 have 33.33% (1/3rd) share each in the suit property i.e. to say plaintiff no.1 will have 1/3rd share, plaintiff no.2 will have 1/3rd share, the defendant no.1 to 4 will have the remaining 1/3rd share in the suit property.
18. The decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
19. Before appointing the Local Commissioner to suggest the modes of partitioning the suit property by meets and bounds. It is requested by the Counsel for the plaintiff that time may be granted to the parties to explore the possibility of settlement/disposing of the property and the apportioning the sale proceeds equally.
20. In view of the above, list the matter for 26.07.2022 necessary orders for further proceedings.
Announced in open court (Ajay Gulati II)
28th April, 2022 ADJ-01 (Central)
THC, Delhi.