Delhi District Court
Mohd. Arif vs Mohd. Rashid on 29 March, 2014
Mohd. Arif v. Mohd. Rashid and anr.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.S. JAYACHANDRA:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-I: SHAHDARA DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
CS NO. 149/2013
Unique I.D No. 02402R0074442012
Mohd. Arif
Son of Sh. Abdul Hamid
R/o 1499, Gali no. 2,
Aziz Ganj Bahadur Garh Road,
Bara Hindu Road, Delhi.
............... Plaintiff.
Versus
1.Mohd. Rashid S/o Sh. Abdul Hamid R/o E-328, Gali no. 9, Subhash Vihar Bhajanpura, Delhi.
2. Smt. Shahida Begum W/o Sh. Faridul Hassan R/o 1492, Gali no.2, Aziz Ganj Bahadur Garh Road, Bara Hindu Road, Delhi.
........ Defendants.
Date of Institution : 15/03/2012
Order reserved on : 29/03/2014
Order passed on : 29/03/2014
Judgement
1. The plaintiff in the above case seeks partition of the property bearing no. E-328, Gali no. 9, Subhash Vihar, Bhajanpura, Delhi on the CS no. 149/2013 Page no. 1 of 3 Mohd. Arif v. Mohd. Rashid and anr.
allegations that the said property belonged to late Zubeda Begum (the mother of the plaintiff). The defendants no. 1 and 2 are the co-born of the plaintiff. It is also alleged that plaintiff's parents expired leaving behind the parties to the suit as the other survivors.
2. Plaintiff also contends that they belonged to Sunni Sect of the Muslim religion. The defendant no. 1 is in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff demanded partition in February 2012 but the defendants did not pay heed. Such a request was again made on 10/03/2012 but was refused. The plaintiff had filed the present suit for partition.
3. The summons were ordered by my Ld. Predecessor to the defendants. Defendant no.1 refused to accept the summons. Defendant no. 2 was served as noted in the ordersheet dated 28/03/2012.
4. My Ld. Predecessor had placed defendants exparte vide order dated 26/07/2012.
5. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff had filed the affidavit at Ex. PW1/A and reiterated the plaint averments. He has relied on Ex. PW1/1, the site plan. PW-2 Mohd. Hafeez also filed his affidavit and contended that he knows the parties. He further testified that Zubeda Begum was the owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff inherits 3/5th share as per Muslim Law. These witnesses were not cross examined since defendants were exparte. There is no evidence on behalf of defendants.
6. After the conclusion of evidence, this court has noted in the ordersheet that the title deed to the property is not furnished and vide an order dated 09/10/2013, the plaintiff was asked to produce the title deed.
CS no. 149/2013 Page no. 2 of 3 Mohd. Arif v. Mohd. Rashid and anr.
The plaintiff has taken several dates but did not produce the title deeds or any papers to adumbrate the ownership of his late mother Zubeda Begum to the suit property, now sought to be partitioned. Even while pronouncing the judgement, two applications were filed seeking further directions or adjournment. These applications are disposed of separately.
7. In the absence of such a title deed to the suit property and further the suit property as described in the schedule not showing the measurements direction-wise, it is becoming very difficult for this court to believe that the suit property is belonged to his late mother Zubeda Begum. Consequently, I pass the following order:-
Order The suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in the open court ( A.S. JAYACHANDRA)
29/03/2014 Addl. District Judge-I:
Shahdara District:
KKD Courts Complex:Delhi
CS no. 149/2013 Page no. 3 of 3