Delhi District Court
Suit No.182/14 Kishan Lal vs . Dal Chand & Ors. on 24 July, 2014
Suit No.182/14 Kishan Lal Vs. Dal Chand & ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN ARORA
ADJ06: SOUTH DISTRICT: NEW DELHI
Suit No : 182/14
Sh. Kishan Lal
s/o late Sh. Budh Ram
R/o 13/210, Trilok Puri
DELHI. PLAINTIFF
VS
1. Sh. Dal Chand
S/o late Sh. Budh Ram
R/o DII318, Madangir, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar
S/o late Sh. Budh Ram
3. Sh. Sanjay Kumar
late Sh. Budh Ram
Both R/o DII17, Madangir, New Delhi
4. Sh. Hazari Lal
s/o late Sh. Budh Ram
R/o F110, Rajapuri,
Near Matiala Village,
Palam, New Delhi .
5. Sh. Girdhari Lal
S/o late Sh. Budh Ram
R/o Flat No.1372, Galai No.40, DDA Flats,
Madangir, New Delhi.
6. Smt.Mori Devi
w/o late Sh. Budh Ram
r/o DII17, Madangir,
New Delhi. DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution of the suit : 29.05.2009
Date of hearing arguments : 19.07.2014
Date of Judgment : 24.07.2014
SUIT FOR PARTITION AND INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1 of 6 Suit No.182/14 Kishan Lal Vs. Dal Chand & ors.
1. As per the case of the plaintiff, late Sh. Budh Ram, was the father of plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 5 and husband of defendant no.6. Sh. Budh Ram expired on 13.04.1999 at Delhi intestate without leaving any Will in respect of properties acquired by him during his lifetime, details of which are as under :
a) Property No. DII/5 Madangir, New Delhi.
b) Prperty NO. DII/318, Madangir, New Delhi.
c) Built up property No. F110, Rajapuri,Near Matiala Village, Palam, New Delhi.
d) Property No.DII/17, Madangir, New Delhi.
( It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of proceedings the plaintiff has restricted his claim with respect to property No. DII/17, Madangir, New Delhi and abondoned his claim with respect to other property, hence the pleadings of other properties are not being included into this judgment being irrelevant) It is further submitted that one plot of land bearing No. RZ37, Jain Colony, New Delhi which was self acquired property of late Sh. Budh Ram was sold by defendants sometime in the year 200405 without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and out of the sale proceeds the defendants purchased another property. It is submitted that plaintiff resides on the 2nd floor portion in the joint family property bearing NO. DII/17, Madangir, New Delhi and late Sh. Budh Ram in the year 1999 had orally partitioned his self acquired properties besides cash, bank balance and Jewellery etc. and had specifically apprised the defendants to identify the given due share to the plaintiff, in future whenever demanded by him after his death. It is submitted that plaintiff on account of his job has shifted to Gurgaon in the year 1999 and he locked his portion leaving his personal belonging and some household goods. It is submitted that plaintiff came back in Delhi in the year 2004 and went to his house but the defendants picked up a quarrel and did not allow him to enter into the said premises and plaintiff in order to maintain peace and to avoid unhappiness, shifted to the rented accommodation. It is further submitted that 2 of 6 Suit No.182/14 Kishan Lal Vs. Dal Chand & ors.
plaintiff enquired from labours and shocked to know that defendants after breaking open the locks of 2nd floor portion of H. No. DII/17, Madangir, New Delhi and removed his personal belonging during his stay at Gurgaon and said portion was let out on rent by the defendants. It is stated that plaintiff did not lodge any police report at that time because he thought that one day good sense will prevail upon the defendants and they will give his share in the properties left behind by late Sh. Budh Ram. Thereafter plaintiff demanded his share in the properties and also requested the defendants too accounts for the same. It is further submitted that on 25.04.2009 the plaintiff in the presence of locality of people finally asked the defendants to partition the properties but defendants have refused. Thereafter plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 11.05.2009 to all the defendants but there was no response, hence this suit praying for decree of partition, thereby partitioning the suit properties in respect of 1/7th share of the plaintiff in the properties left behind by late Sh. Budh Ram.
2. Defendants contested the suit by filing their joint Written Statement. It is alleged in the WS that father of the plaintiff and defendants late Sh. Budh Ram before his death has given the plaintiff his share and he purchased a house/flat for him at DII/271, Madangir, New Delhi and plaintiff alongwith his family shifted there with his household articles and even after that defendants helped the plaintiff on various occasions. It is alleged that all the brothers have amicably decided to live separately and take their shares and now defendant No.2,3 and 6 are residing in the same premises i.e DII/17, Madangir, New Delhi.
As per defendants, the details and ownership of the properties in question are as follows :
1. Property bearing No. DII/5, Madangir, New Delhi is self acquired property of defendant No.5
2. Property bearing No. DII/318, Madangir, New Delhi was purchased by defendant no.1 in the name of his wife.
3 of 6
Suit No.182/14 Kishan Lal Vs. Dal Chand & ors.
3. Property bearing No. F110, Rajapuri, Near Matiala Village, Palam, New Delhi is in possession of the defendant no.4 and as per wishes of late Sh. Budh Ram that property was given to defendant no.4 and all the defendants gave their consent regarding the property bearing No. DII/318, Madangir, New Delhi because late Sh. Budh Ram is his lifetime given equal share to their sons.
It is further submitted that during his lifetime late Sh. Budh Ram has purchased a property bearing no. DII/271, Madangir, New Delhi in the name of plaintiff and defendant no.6. It is further submitted that the reason why the plaintiff started living separately due to behaviour of wife of plaintiff was very rude towards the other family members. She used to create scenes every day and the atmosphere of the family was very disturbed that is why late Sh. Budh Ram decided to give the plot for the sake peace and separated the plaintiff and he purchased a property bearing No. DII/271 for him and plaintiff took all his household articles and started living there with his family but few days later plaintiff contacted defendant no.6 and told that he wants to shift to Gurgaon due to job, so he wants to sell the said property and on his request, defendant No.6 has signed the sale deed and now the plaintiff and his wife started harassing the defendants after the death of Sh. Budh Ram and demanded their share which he already taken and the plaintiff is not entitled to any kind of share in the suit property. On the above mentioned ground defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. Plaintiff filed replication to the WS of defendants denying the contents of the same and reiterated the contents of plaint.
4. Thereafter, defendants stopped appearing in the matter and vide order dated 21.10.2011 defendants were proceeded exparte and matter was fixed for ex parte evidence.
5. Plaintiff in exparte evidence, examined himself as PW1 and filed affidavit in his examinationinchief and reiterated his case.
4 of 6
Suit No.182/14 Kishan Lal Vs. Dal Chand & ors.
6. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Sri. Kishan as PW2 who stated that he knows the plaintiff Kishan Lal for the last 40 years. The plaintiff was residing at the suit property i.e DII/17, Madangir, New Delhi till 1999. After 1999 Kishan Lal went to Gurgaon for job. After that the brothers of the plaintiff, rented out the suit property. He further deposed that he know that Kishan Lal was residing on the second floor of suit property and he know that Sh. Budh Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5. He further deposed that he know that Sh. Budh Ram was having three properties at Madangir and two properties at Matiala and in his presence late Sh. Budh Ram requested to his sons various time to have peaceful partition but they never agreed. All the properties purchased by late Sh. Budh Ram were his self acquired properties.
7. If we perused the pleadings, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 6 have claimed that suit property was purchased by their father late Sh. Budh Ram who before his death has given the plaintiff his share and he purchased a house/flat for him at DII/271, Madangir, New Delhi and plaintiff alongwith his family shifted there with his household articles and all the brothers have amicably decided to live separately and take their shares and now defendant No.2,3 and 6 are residing in the same premises i.e DII/17, Madangir, New Delhi but nothing has been placed/ proved on record by the defendants any such family settlement vide which the suit property was came into the share of defendant No.2, 3 and 6 and they became owners of the same.
8. In these circumstances, the court is left with no option but to assume the fact that the suit property is the property belonging to legal heirs of late Sh. Budh Ram after his death and plaintiff No.1, Defendants No.1 to 6 collectively are owners of 1/7th share in the said property i.e. property bearing No. DII/17, Madangir, New Delhi. Preliminary decree be prepared accordingly.
9. I hereby appoint Sh. Shailender Pratap Singh, advocate as Court Commissioner, Phone No. 8882365556, Office address : 10/176, 2nd Floor, N Block, 5 of 6 Suit No.182/14 Kishan Lal Vs. Dal Chand & ors.
Dakshin Puri, New Delhi, enrollment no.UP2807/03 to have measurement of the suit property. The Court Commissioner shall make endeavor to talk to the parties to suit in order to find out the ways in which suit property can be partitioned among them and Court Commissioner is required to submits his report within two months from the receipt of the order. Fees of the Court Commissioner is fixed at Rs.21,000/ to be born by all the parties in equal shares i.e. by plaintiff, defendant No.1 to 6 i.e. Rs.3,000/ each.
Announced in Open Court (NAVEEN ARORA)
on 24th day of July 2014 ADJ06: South: Saket
New Delhi.
24.07.2014
Present: None.
Vide my separate judgment, preliminary decree has been passed with respect to the suit property bearing No. DII/17, Madangir, New Delhi. Preliminary decree be prepared accordingly and Sh. Shailender Pratap Singh, advocate is appointed as Court Commissioner, Phone No. 8882365556, Office address : 10/176, 2nd Floor, N Block, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi, enrollment no.UP2807/03 to have measurement of the suit property. The Court Commissioner shall make endeavor to talk to the parties to suit in order to find out the ways in which suit property can be partitioned among them and Court Commissioner is required to submits his report within two months from the receipt of the order. Fees of the Court Commissioner is fixed at Rs.21,000/ to be born by all the parties in equal shares i.e. by plaintiff, defendant No.1 to 6 i.e. Rs.3,000/ each.
Put up on 14.10.2014 for filing of report of Local Commissioner.
(NAVEEN ARORA) ADJ06 : SOUTH DISTRICT NEW DELHI : 24.07.2014 6 of 6