Delhi District Court
Smt. Darshana Chopra (Now Deceased) vs A. Sh. Shyam Lal (Deceased) on 7 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEHA MITTAL: CIVIL JUDGE10, CENTRAL, TIS
HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
No. 593257/16
1. Smt. Darshana Chopra (now deceased)
Through Her LRs.
i. Sh. Ram Nath Chopra (husband)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya Chopra,
R/o B5/258, Sector3, Rohini,
Delhi85.
ii. Smt. Bela Handa (Daughter)
W/o Sh. Parveen Handa,
R/o C8/327A, Keshav Puram,
Delhi35.
iii. Smt. Manish Maggo (Daughter)
W/o Sh. Sunil Maggo,
R/o D17, Kiran Garden,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi59.
iv. Smt. Sweta Gabha (Daughter)
W/o Sh. Sunit Gabha,
R/o J346, Sector23,
Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Smt. Rama Rani
W/o Sh. Kailash Chand,
R/o A1/287B, Lawrence Road,
New Delhi. ...........Plaintiffs
VERSUS
A. Sh. Shyam Lal (Deceased),
S/o Late Sh. Daya Ram,
Through his LRs
No.59357/16 Darshana Devi vs. Shyam Lal & Ors.
Page No.1/8
1. Mrs. Rachna W/o Sh. Pappu
2. Km. Varsha (Minor)
3. Km. Kamini (Minor)
All R/o 686/2, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, New Delhi05.
B. Mrs. Saroj Bala
W/o Sh. Subhash Arora
R/o D37, Shakarpur,
Delhi
C. Smt. Surinder Rani (deceased)
W/o Sh. Madan Lal Bakshi,
Through her Lrs:
1. Smt. Anita W/o Sh. Rajinder
2. Smt. Jhoti W/o Sh. Prem
3. Smt. Neelam W/o Sh. Chunni Lal
4. Smt. Seema
5. Sh. Kamal Bakshi
All R/o A1/74, Lawrence Road,
New Delhi.
D. Smt. Sharda Rani (deceased)
through her LRs.
(i) Sh. Anil Bakshi
S/o Late Sh. Sant Ram Bakshi,
R/o 283, Govt. Colony,
Mohammad Pur,
New Delhi66.
(ii) Smt. Ritu Rawly
W/o Sh. Rakehs Rawly
R/o H. No. 8/373, Sector3,
Rajender Nagar, Shahibabad,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
(iii) Smt. Alka Satija
No.59357/16 Darshana Devi vs. Shyam Lal & Ors.
Page No.2/8
S/o Sh. Sushil Satija
R/o H. No. 406,Lambi Gali,
Shahbad Daulatpur.,
Samaipur, Delhi42. ......... Defendants
Date of Institution : 25.10.94
Date of reservation of Judgment : 07.9.2019
Date of Judgment : 07.9.2019
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION & PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned suit. This is a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
PLAINT:
2. As per the averments made in the plaint, the brief facts are that the plaintiff Smt. Darshana Devi and defendant No. 1 to 4 are real sisters and brother as well as they are children of Late Sh. Daya Ram. It is averred that on 18.04.1988, Sh. Daya Ram S/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath died living behind property No. 686/2, Punjabi Bagh, Anand Parbat, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). It is averred that the above mentioned parties in suit are in joint possession and all the parties are the cosharer and entitled to 1/5th share in the aforesaid property as per law. It is averred that on 23.10.1994, the plaintiff asked the defendant No. 1 to give her 1/5th share in the aforesaid property on which he became angry and refused to give the share of plaintiff and further threatened to dispose of the property in question within four days. It is averred that the other defendants have been impleaded being the necessary party. It is averred that defendant No. 1 has no right to dispose of the property in question of share of the plaintiff. Hence, the present No.59357/16 Darshana Devi vs. Shyam Lal & Ors.
Page No.3/8suit has been filed for the following relief:
a) decree of declaration that plaintiff is entitled for 1/5 share in suit property;
b) decree of partition thereby giving 1/5 share to plaintiff in suit property;
c) decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from creating third party interest in suit property.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
3. In written statement filed by defendant no.1, it is specifically denied that the defendant No. 1 and other defendants have been residing in joint possession of the suit property. It has been stated that the said property is a self acquired property by the defendant No. 1 (deceased). It is further submitted that the defendant No. 1 Sh. Shyam Lal deceased had acquired a piece of land from one Sh. Ramji Dass owner of the land and R/o Subzi Mandi, Delhi and constructed thereon four rooms for his family members only. Thereafter, the Central Government has acquired the whole land of Anand Parbat and paid the compensation to the landlord with assurance to the residents that as and when they will be evicted from there, they shall be provided alternative accommodation by the Govt. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not filed any documents to prove the ownership of late Sh. Daya Ram and her own over the said property. Hence, the suit of plaintiff may be dismissed.
4. In its written statement, defendant no. 4 has admitted the plaint filed by the plaintiff and prayed that he be given 1/5th share in the suit property.
No.59357/16 Darshana Devi vs. Shyam Lal & Ors.
Page No.4/8
REPLICATION:
5. Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendants wherein the plaintiff has denied all the averments made in the written statement and reinstated the averments made in the plaint.
6. During the pendency of present suit, the original defendants no.1,2 & 4 had expired and their LRs were impleaded. Even the original sole plaintiff Smt. Darshana Chopra expired on account of which her LRs were impleaded as party in the present suit. Vide order dt. 19.12.15, Smt. Rama Rani (original defendant no.3) was transposed as plaintiff no.2.
ISSUES: 7. Following issues were framed vide order dt. 19.07.2000: 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit property left by deceased Daya Ram? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of partition/declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Relief.
EVIDENCE: 8. To substantiate its case, the plaintiff has examined one witness. 9. PW1 Smt. Rama Rani tendered her affidavit as ExPW1/A in evidence and has relied upon the site plan ExPW1/1.
Vide separate statement PE was closed.
No.59357/16 Darshana Devi vs. Shyam Lal & Ors.
Page No.5/8
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
10. The defendant has examined three witnesses:
11. DW1 Smt. Rachna Devi tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW1/A in evidence, DW2 Smt. Varsha tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A and DW3 Smt. Kamini tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW3/A. Vide separate statement DE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS: 12. I have heard the final arguments and perused the record.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT: ISSUE NO.1 & 2:
13. The burden to prove both these issues is on the plaintiff.
14. The basic requirement in the suit for partition is to prove that property of which partition is being sought is ancestral property in the hands of the parties.
However, in the present case plaintiff has merely alleged that the suit property has been self acquired by deceased Daya Ram. No documents have been placed on record to substantiate the same. Even no evidence has been lead by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has merely reiterated the averments made in the plaint in her evidence and the only document relied upon by her is the site plan Ex. PW1/1. Merely stating the averments on affidavit cannot discharge the burden of proof placed upon the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff has admitted in her cross examination that she has not filed any document regarding the ownership of the suit property and has also expressed her ignorance about the fact from whom the suit property was purchased by her late father. Though No.59357/16 Darshana Devi vs. Shyam Lal & Ors.
Page No.6/8the witness has denied the suggestion that the suit property is a govt. land and has not been purchased by Sh. Daya Ram, it cannot prove the case of plaintiff. PW1 has further deposed in her cross examination that construction of three storeys on half of area of suit property was raised by defendant no.A1. In view of this statement, it becomes doubtful as to how the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition.
15. It is also pertinent to mention here that both the sides were directed to file documents showing the ownership of the suit property in support of their assertions vide order dated 27.03.2015. Despite this specific query being put forward by this Court, it was stated on behalf of plaintiff that the plaintiff side does not have any document pertaining to ownership of Daya Ram regarding the suit property as observed in order dated 03.06.2015.
16. Defendant No. 1 has alleged in his written submission that he is the sole owner of the suit property being his self acquired property. However, no evidence has been lead on behalf of defendant to discharge its burden of proof. Merely bald averments cannot help the case of the defendant. DW1 to 3 have admitted in their cross examination that they do not have any ownership documents of the suit property. However, failure of defendants also cannot prove the case of plaintiff.
17.. It is well settled that in order to be entitled to the relief claimed by the plaintiff, he has to stand on its own legs. Hence, the failure of the defendants to prove that the properties have been self acquired by them does not help the plaintiff in any way.
18. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he is entitled for a decree of partition and declaration. Hence, these issues are decided against the plaintiff. For the same reasons, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction also.
No.59357/16 Darshana Devi vs. Shyam Lal & Ors.
Page No.7/819. In view of the foregoing discussion, the plaintiffs have not been able to prove that they are entitled for the reliefs claimed. The suit of the plaintiffs is accordingly dismissed.
20. No order as to costs.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
22. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signedNEHA by NEHA MITTAL Announced in the open MITTAL Date: 2019.09.07 16:22:16 +0530 Court on 07.9.2019 (Neha Mittal) Civil Judge10 (Central) THC/Delhi/07.9.2019 No.59357/16 Darshana Devi vs. Shyam Lal & Ors. Page No.8/8