Delhi District Court
Bishan Lal vs Braham Pal And Ors on 23 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH KISHOR KUMAR, DISTRICT
JUDGE-04, NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS DJ No. 408/2019
CNR no. DLNT01-007265-2019
Bishan Lal
S/o Late Ram Swaroop
R/o H.No. 240, Geeta Bhawan,
Punjabi Mandir, Village Badli,
Delhi-42
...........Plaintiff
Versus
1.) Braham Pal
S/o Late Ram Swaroop
2.) Smt. Saroj Bala
W/o Sh. Braham Pal
Both R/o H.No. 240, Geeta Bhawan,
Punjabi Mandir, Village Badli,
Delhi-42
3.) Mrs. Longshree
W/o Shri Kundan Lal,
D/o Late Ram Swaroop
R/o H.No. 684, Gali No.2,
Chander Lok, Durgapuri,
Shahdara, Delhi.
4.) The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
S.P. Marg Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi-02
........Defendants
Date of Institution : 03.08.2019
CS DJ No. 408/2019 Bishan Lal v Braham Pal & Ors. 1/4
Date of Order : 23.04.2025
Final Outcome : Preliminary Decree Passed
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants.
2. The facts in narrow compass are that plaintiff and defendant no.1 are the real brother and defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 is the real sister of plaintiff and defendant no.1. The plaintiff and defendant no.1 are residing in property earlier known as Kerosene Oil Depot No.240, Near Punjabi Mandir, Village Badli, New Delhi, presently known as H.No.240, Geeta Bhawan, Punjabi Mandir, Village Badli, Delhi-42 ( hereinafter be referred to as the suit property). The plaintiff and defendant no.1 & 3 have inherited the suit property after the death of their parents and are the owner of the same and having equal share. The defendant no.1 and 2 are in possession of front portion of the suit property while the plaintiff is having back side portion of the same.
3. The defendant no.1 and 2 in recent past had purchased a plot in front of the suit property bearing p;lot No.241 which has no concern with the common gallery/passage, but defendant no.1 and 2 now wants to open an entrance in that gallery/passage in front of door of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 wants to open the door of plot no.241 in front of main entrance of plaintiff. The officials of defendant no.4 of the area has knowledge of the aforesaid CS DJ No. 408/2019 Bishan Lal v Braham Pal & Ors. 2/4 unauthorized construction but they are not taking any action.
4. It is further stated that in April, 2019 the plaintiff requested the defendant no.1 to partition the suit property, but the defendants turned angry and extended threats of dire consequences if the partition is sought. The plaintiff made a written complaint on 15.06.2019 to the local office of defendant no.4 and the police under speed post on 25.06.2019, but to no action. Hence, the present suit.
5. The contention of the defendants is that the suit property was inherited by the plaintiff and defendant no.1 after the death of father of plaintiff and defendant no.1 and are possessing equal shares in the suit property. It is further the contention of defendants no.1 that defendant no.3 is their sister and he had already spent huge sum of money in her marriage, therefore, she is not entitled to any share.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties on the point of passing preliminary decree of partition in the present case and have carefully gone through the material on record.
7. After perusal of the plaint as well as written statement filed on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2, it is seen that there is no defence taken by defendants in their written statement so much so that they have admitted the relationship between the parties and further admitted that the suit property was inherited by them. The contention of defendant no.1 that he had spent money on the CS DJ No. 408/2019 Bishan Lal v Braham Pal & Ors. 3/4 marriage of defendant no.3 is no ground to deny the share to defendant no.3 and as per law also this ground stands nowhere. Admittedly, the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and 3 are the legal heirs of late Ram Swaroop from whom suit property belongs. The relationship between the parties has been duly admitted by the defendants no.1 and 2. In these circumstances, a preliminary decree of partition is passed in respect of the suit property i.e. H.No.240, Geeta Bhawan, Punjabi Mandir, Village Badli, Delhi-42, measuring 265 sq yards, holding that plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties.
8. Since the preliminary decree of partition is passed with respect to the suit property and after partition the suit property would be partitioned in three equal shares, the court is not inclined to grant any other relief to the plaintiff and the other reliefs are hereby declined.
9. Preliminary Decree of partition be prepared accordingly.
10. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, Digitally
signed by
KISHOR
rd
On 23 April, 2025 KISHOR KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.23
17:07:33
+0530
(Kishor Kumar)
DJ-04, North, District,
Rohini Courts , Delhi
CS DJ No. 408/2019 Bishan Lal v Braham Pal & Ors. 4/4