Delhi District Court
Memo Devi vs Nem Chand Page No. 1 Of 18 on 27 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS.RICHA SHARMA,
CIVIL JUDGE01, WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 612605/2016
Date of Institution : 02.07.1981
Date of reservation of judgment : 22.11.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.11.2018
1.Memo Devi, wife of Sh. Prem Chand (since deceased) Through LRs
(a) Mohit Jain, Grand son of plaintiff No.1, i.e. Late Memo Devi, S/o Late Vinod Jain, S/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Ground and first floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(b) Ajay Jain, Grand son of plaintiff No. 1, i.e. Late Memo Devi, S/o Late Vinod Jain, S/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Ground and first floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(c) Meenakshi Jain grand daughter of plaintiff No. 1 i.e. Late Memo Devi, D/o late Vinod Jain i.e. S/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Ground and first floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(d) Rinku Chaudhary Jain (Baby Jain) grand daughter of plaintiff No. 1 i.e, late Memo Devi, D/o Late Vinod Jain, S/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Ground and first floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(e) Pradeep Jain grand son of plaintiff no. 1 i.e. late Memo Devi, S/o Late Hem Chand i.e. S/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Second SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 1 Of 18 Floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi
(f) Surender Jain grand son of plaintiff No. 1 i.e., Late Memo Devi, S/o Late Hem Chand, S/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Second Floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(g) Vandana Jain, grand daughter of plaintiff no. 1 i.e. late Memo Devi, D/o Late Hem Chand, S/o late Memo Devi, R/o Second Floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(h) Rakesh Jain grand son of plaintiff No. 1 i.e, Late Memo Devi, S/o Late Dhanwanti Jain, D/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Second Floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(i) Pappu Jain grand son of plaintiff no. 1 i.e. late Memo Devi, S/o Late Dhanwanti Jain, D/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Second Floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(j) Vina Jain grand daughter of plaintiff no. 1 i.e. Memo Devi, D/o Late Dhanwanti Jain, D/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Second Floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(k) Muno Jain grand daughter of plaintiff No. 1 i.e. late Memo Devi, D/o late Dhanwanti Jain, D/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Second Floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi
(l) Moniya Jain grand daughter of plaintiff no. 1 i.e. Late Memo Devi, D/o Late Dhanwati Jain, D/o Late Memo Devi, R/o Second Floor, 4007, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.
(m) Pushpa Jain, D/o Plaintiff No. 1 i.e.. Late Memo Devi W/o Sh. Trilok Chand, R/o House No. 2788, Gali Rajputana, Sabzi Mandi, Ghantaghar, Delhi 110 007.
SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 2 Of 18
2. Smt. Prem Wati, W/o Chandu Lal Jain, (since deceased) Through LRs
(a) Anil Kumar Jain, S/o plaintiff no. 2 i.e. Late Prem Wati, R/o 717, Mukeempura, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi.
(b) Sunil Kumar Jain, S/o plaintiff No. 2 i.e. Late Prem Wati, R/o 695, Mukeempura, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi.
(c) Sushil Kumar Jain, S/o plaintiff No. 2 i.e. late Prem Wati, R/o 695, Mukeempura, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi.
(d) Beena Rani Jain, D/o plaintiff No. 2 i.e, Late Prem Wati, W/o Sh. Subhash Chand Jain, R/o H 332, Second Floor, Block H, Gali No . 12, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Sharda Rani Jain, D/o plaintiff No. 2 i.e. late Prem Wati, R/o 17, New Ram Nagar Colony, Jwalapur, Haridwar (Uttrakhand)
(f) Seema Rani Jain, D/o plaintiff No. 2 i.e. late Prem Wati, R/o 17, Scheme No. 7, MIG, Nai Sadak, Meerut, UP.
(g) Sushila Rani Jain, D/o plaintiff No. 2 i.e. late Prem Wati, R/o H 57, Block H, Gali No. 1, Gulab Vatika, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP; Also At: H51, Block H, Gali No. 1, Gulab Vatika, Loni,Ghaziabad, UP.
(h) Shashi Jain, D/o plaintiff No. 2 i.e., late Prem Wati, R/o 2294, Gali Paharwali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 3 Of 18
3. Smt. Gian Wati, W/o Sh. Anand Dass Jain, (since deceased) Through LRs
(a) Narender Jain, S/o plaintiff No. 3 i.e. late Gyan Wati, R/o H. No. 9/2668, Gali No. 17, Kailash Nagar, Delhi 110 031
(b) Chander Jain, S/o Plaintiff No. 3 i.e. late Gyan Wati, R/o H. No. 9/2668, Gali No. 17, Kailash Nagar, Delhi 110 031.
(c) Nikhlesh Jain, S/o plaintiff No. 3 i.e. Late Gyan Wati, R/o H. No. 2726, Gali No. 17, Kailash Nagar, Delhi. 110031.
(d) Ashok Jain Jain, S/o plaintiff No. 3 i.e. Late Gyan Wati, R/o H. No. 9/2663, Gali No. 17, Kailash Nagar, Delhi 110 031.
(e) Devender Jain, S/o plaintiff No. 3 i.e. late Gyan Wati, R/o H. No. 9/2668, Gali No. 17, Kailash Nagar, Delhi 110 031.
(f) Raju Jain, S/o plaintiff No. 3 i.e. late Gyan Wati, R/o H. No. 9/2668, Gali No. 17, Kailash Nagar, Delhi 110 031.
(g) Kanta Jain, D/o plaintiff No. 3 i.e, late Gyan Wati, R/o H. No. 1/2043, first floor, STR No. 22, Near Durga Mandir, Ram Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi.
(h) Santosh Jain, D/o plaintiff No. 3, i.e. late Gyan Wati, R/o H. No. 2726, Gali No. 17, Kailash Kumar, Delhi 110 031.
(i) Guddo Jain, D/o plaintiff No. 3 i.e. late Gyan Wati, R/o H. No. 2726, Gali No. 17, Kailash Nagar, Delhi 110 031.
................ Plaintiffs Vs. Sh. Nem Chand Jain, (since deceased) SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 4 Of 18 Through LRs
(a) Sh. Jitender Kumar Jain, S/o defendant i.e. late Sh. Nem Chand Jain, R/o H. No. 146B, GH 2, Ankur Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110 063.
(b) Sh. Sukhmaal Jain, S/o defendant i.e. late Sh. Nem Chand Jain, R/o B 104, Pujari Apartment, Shiv Vihar, Opp. Udyog Nagar/Vihar, Rohtak Road, (near Nangloi), New Delhi.
(c) Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain, S/o Late Amrit Lal Jain, Prop. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain & Co., Shop No. 2295, Gali Pahar Wali, Dharampura, Chandni Chowk, Delhi 110 006 ................... Defendants SUIT FOR PARTITION AND RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS JUDGMENT 1 The present suit for partition and rendition of accounts was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and a preliminary decree was passed through the judgment and decree dated 15.03.1995. The parties were held entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit property bearing No. 229495, Paharwali Gali, Dharampura, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
2 In brief the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff's are three sisters and defendant is their only brother and plaintiff No. 2 (since expired) was represented through her LRs. It is further averred by SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 5 Of 18 plaintiffs that their mother, Smt. Hazaro Devi died intestate on 05.01.1979, leaving behind the aforesaid LR and the aforementioned suit property. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that ground floor of the suit property consists of three shops and two godowns which have been occupied by tenants. Three rooms and a kitchen have been occupied by other tenants on the first floor and rest of the premises on the first floor were stated to be in possession of plaintiff No. 2 (since deceased). It was further averred by the plaintiffs that, defendant had been recovering rent from tenants since death of their mother and has not paid any amount to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the present suit was filed by plaintiffs seeking division of the suit property in four equal shares and also to render the accounts of the rent collected by defendant.
3 Further, vide order dated 07.02.1997, appeal against preliminary decree was dismissed and order of the Trial court was upheld by Ld. Appellate Court. It is further apropos to state that, pursuant to that plaintiffs have not been appearing in the present suit and endeavour was made to secure the presence of the plaintiff but despite court notice none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff to pursue the present suit. Pursuant to that an application was filed by defendant No. 1 for passing a final decree with respect to the preliminary decree passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 15.03.1995.
4 A local commissioner was appointed and as per the report of SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 6 Of 18 the local commissioner the suit property is not capable of partition. Endevours were made to bring the parties before the court but despite that none appeared from the side of the plaintiff nor was any endevour/proposal made by either of the parties to purchase the share of the other parties. No mode of settlement was also adopted by the parties to exchange the share of the other parties.
5 At the cost of repetition it is stated that the appeal to the order of preliminary decree was dismissed and the same was upheld and there is no averment or suggestion that any of the parties have gone for second appeal. None of the parties have made any submission regarding any appeal pending qua the order of preliminary decree. In view of the above, the preliminary decree dated 15.03.1995, has attained finality.
6 As a sequel to the above discussion, it can be deduced that the property is not capable of partition through metes and bounds and accordingly, the principle of auction sale needs to be discussed. The principle of the auction sale is as under:
PRINCIPLES OF AUCTION SALE Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 is reproduced as under:
"2. Power to court to order sale instead of division in partition suits.
Whenever in any suit for partition in which, if instituted prior to the commencement of this Act, a decree for partition might have been made, it SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 7 Of 18 appears to the court that by reason of the nature of the property to which the suit relates, or of the number of the shareholders therein, or of any other special circumstance, a division of the property cannot reasonably or conveniently be made, and that a sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial for all the shareholders, the court may, if it thinks fit, on the request of any of such shareholders interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards, direct a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds."
7 The Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has recently dealt with the issue of Sale of the property in Partition in case bearing O. REF. 2/2018 IN CS(OS) 1098/2005 titled as Indu Singh and Anr. Versus Prem Chaudhary and Ors. decided on 11.05.2018. The para Nos.4 to 6 of the said Judgment is reproduced herein:
"4 (i). The meaning of "partition", in one more sense, is to give a person his monetary value of the share in the joint properties. Before passing of the Partition Act 1893, the concept of partition only meant partition by metes and bounds or physical partition of the joint properties. In many cases on account of the fact that physical partition by metes and bounds was not possible, there hence resulted a stalemate, because neither the properties could be physically partitioned by metes and bounds nor could sale take place of the joint properties because there was no concept prevalent of partition having the effect of giving a person his monetary value share in the joint properties by selling the joint properties.
Partition Act was enacted to remedy this SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 8 Of 18
failing. By the Partition Act it was provided for the first time that in case a joint property could not be physically partitioned by metes and bounds (including by applying the principle of owelty or equalisation) then in such a scenario the joint property could be sold. I may note that owelty means that when by physical partition a coowner gets less or more physical property than falling to as per his percentage share in a joint property, then in such a case final partition is effected by, besides physically partitioning the property, in addition also awarding a monetary amount to a person who gets a lesser share of the property on partition than the monetary value equivalent of his share. The person who gets a share which is larger than his monetary value entitlement on partition becomes liable to pay a monetary amount to a person who gets a share lesser than is his monetary value entitlement of his share in the joint property/properties. Owelty principle is thus an equalisation principle.
"(ii) Enactment of the Partition Act however did not provide a complete cure because an entitlement to sell the joint property/properties was only when more than one moiety or upwards of the shareholders agree that the joint property/properties are to be sold. Moiety means 50% or a half share. Therefore in a scenario where less than 50% of the joint owner(s) wanted an order of sale, then such an order of sale could not be passed. Therefore, though the bringing into force of the Partition Act did remedy some shortcoming in the position of the partition law prevailing before the passing of the Partition Act by entitling the sale of the joint property/properties, yet even after passing of SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 9 Of 18 this Act there still remained a failing/shortcoming in the situation where if 50% or more of the joint owners did not agree for sale then once again there was a stalemate because partition could not be effected of the joint property/properties either by physical partition by metes and bounds or by selling the joint property/properties and giving a monetary value from the sale proceeds of the joint property/properties to a coowner as per his share percentage in the joint property/properties. We note that there is an aspect with respect to an order of sale under the Partition Act to be deemed to be a decree in terms of Section 8 of the Partition Act, and this aspect will be adverted to in detail hereinafter inasmuch as the provision of Section 8 of the Partition Act existing in this Act is the main reason for reference to this Full Bench.
"5(i). The Partition Act was passed in the year 1893 and Code of Civil Procedure was passed later in the year 1908. There are two provisions of CPC which are relevant to the issues at hand, and which are the provisions of Order XX Rule 18 and Order XXVI Rule 14.
"(ii) A reference to Order XX Rule 18 CPC shows that properties of which partition take place are of two types. First type of properties are agricultural properties i.e. those properties which pay land revenue to the Government. Qua such properties the provision of Sub Rule (1) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC applies. Second type of properties are the properties in urban areas and with respect to partition of such properties, it is the provision of Sub Rule (2) of OrderXX Rule 18 SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 10 Of 18 which applies.
"(iii) As per Order XX Rule 18 Sub Rule (1) in a suit for partition there is only one decree which is passed and the ministerial act of physical division of joint property/properties is left to the Collector or a person deputed by the Collector as is provided in Section 54 CPC.
Therefore, with respect to partition suits of properties paying land revenue to the Government, after a decree was passed declaring the shares of the parties, then by the same decree the Collector or a person deputed by the Collector is appointed to bring about physical division of the properties in terms of the shares declared in the decree.
"(iv) So far as urban immovable properties are concerned which are not the subject matter of Sub Rule (1) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC, Sub Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC provides that where partition cannot be conveniently made without further enquiry, then first a preliminary decree is passed declaring shares/rights of the parties, and thereafter further directions as are required in the facts and circumstance of the each case are passed. Of course, even with respect to immovable properties which are subject matter of Sub Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC there can be cases where it may not be required to pass first only a preliminary decree, and that in certain cases a Court can pass both a preliminary and final decree by one judgment if the properties which are subject matter of the suit for partition are such that the Court can physically divide the joint properties in terms of the shares of the joint owners. SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 11 Of 18 "(v) Of course, the factum of physical division of the properties, whether under Sub Rule (1) or under Sub Rule(2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC, the same would also be; where facts of a case so require; by also applying the principle of owelty, because surely and in many cases partition by metes and bounds does result in a person getting that physical share of the property/properties which will be less or more than the monetary value percentage share of that coowner/joint owner in the properties. The principle of owelty (i.e. an equalization amount) is found and clearly so specified under Order XXVI Rule 14 SubRule (1), and this SubRule (1) of Order XXVI Rule 14 will apply to partition of the properties which are subject matter of both SubRule (1) and SubRule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC.
"6.(i) At this stage it will be extremely relevant to note two important aspects. (ii) First aspect is that while Sub Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC provides that a court may on account of the facts and circumstances as regards the properties which are subject matter of the suit for partition, find that straightaway a final decree for partition cannot be passed giving physical shares in the joint properties to the joint owners, then therefore in such cases, the court passes only a preliminary decree declaring the shares of the parties, and that after passing of the preliminary decree, a court has; as per the last line and set of words of SubRule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC; powers to pass "such further directions as may be required".
These words appearing at the end of the Sub Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC are very important and of great significance because SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 12 Of 18 these words in my opinion has removed the shortcoming which had still remained in spite of passing of the Partition Act as regards the situation when moiety or upwards of the shareholders did not want sale of the suit properties. With respect to properties which were not subject matter of payment of land revenue to the government, then with respect to such properties which are subject matter of Order XX Rule 18 SubRule (2)CPC, court was given intendedly the power to pass such further directions as may be required, and such a wide expression therefore in my opinion will entitle a civil court to order for sale of the joint property/properties even if moiety or upwards of the shareholders do not want sale of the joint property/properties. This language of the last few words at the end of Order XX Rule 18 Sub Rule (2) in my opinion becomes very important and relevant in today‟s age and date because a considerable number of immovable properties which are subject matter of suits for partition are properties which have been constructed many decades earlier and which is the next aspect which is being immediately adverted to hereinafter.
"(iii) The second aspect is that over a period of time in urban areas the covered area of construction which is permissible on a plot has been steadily increasing. For example in Delhi previously on a plot ordinarily a ground floor, first floor and a barsati floor (part second floor) was only allowed to be constructed. Barsati floor means that the entire second floor is not allowed to be covered but the second floor which is called as a barsati floor is allowed to be only partly covered.
The municipal law thereafter changed whereby SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 13 Of 18 almost the entire second floor was allowed to be covered. Thereafter, the municipal law has further changed and a third floor was allowed to be constructed, besides allowing construction of a basement on a property. Now in addition to a plot having a basement and four floors, in view of the scarcity of parking of vehicles in a city like Delhi on account of the existence of unending number of vehicles, stilt parking is also permitted to be made below the ground floor and above the basement floor. Since the ultimate object and the real intention of the joint properties being partitioned is to give a person his monetary value equivalent of his percentage share in the joint property/properties, and since now additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR)/covered area permissible, therefore in old constructed properties, simply by physically dividing the existing construction the same does not result in a person getting his monetary value of his percentage share in the joint property/properties. Partition therefore really in today‟s date and age in urban areas is a partition in terms of FAR/covered area, and once that is so, then on such FAR/covered area being available to a coowner/joint owner then such a person may/would/could want to reconstruct for enjoying more constructed area falling to his share, and which will necessarily require bringing down the old construction and thereafter making fresh construction on the plot of basement plus four floors and stilt parking. Thus in very old constructed properties simply physically partitioning of such joint property/properties is not the answer, and the joint property/properties in many cases have necessarily to be sold so as to give a person his actual monetary sharevalue in the joint property/properties. At this stage I would hasten to SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 14 Of 18 add that with respect to sale of a joint property, the entitlement of a coowner in terms of Sections 3,4,6 and 7 of the Partition Act come in, whereby on an order being passed of sale of a joint property, the sale is not necessarily and firstly by public auction/sale, because firstly in the sale proceedings, one or more coowners can buy out the other coowner/coowners i.e. rights of pre emption.
"(iv) Therefore in my opinion the words as found in the last line of Sub Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC would result in a position that as of today there no longer exists any gap or shortcoming or failing which would result in a stalemate if joint owner(s), having less than a 50% share, ask for his/their share by filing a suit for partition of the joint property/properties."
8 I have perused the file, the property is of such a nature that the same is not feasible to be divided by metes and bounds and further the order regarding the preliminary decree dated 15.03.1995, clearly put a mandate in para 18 upon the parties that, "the parties are also directed to submit the detailed plans with specific measurements of the built up portions and the possible mode of partition of the premises." The defendant was also asked to render the details of account of rent so realized from the defendants in the premises as stated. In light of the specific directions and mandate given to the parties, the same has not been duly complied by either of them. Considering the aforesaid only mode which is available under law is to auction the property in question invoking section 3 of the Partition Act 1983. However, the final decree is required to be passed before invoking Section 3 of the SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 15 Of 18 Partition Act, 1893. The final decree is required to be engrossed upon the NonJudicial stamp paper, as has been dealt by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid Judgment and the relevant operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
"ORDER OF THE FULL BENCH (Per majority, R.K.Gauba, J, dissenting):
"I. An order of sale passed under Section 8 of the Partition Act is a final decree in a partition suit, and all proceedings towards sale of the property which is subject matter of the final decree of partition, have to take place in execution proceedings of this final decree.
"II. An order of sale in a partition suit passed under Section 8 of the Partition Act is an instrument of Partition under Section 2 (15) of the Stamp Act and requires to be stamped in accordance with Article 45 of the Schedule thereof.
"III. The judgments of this Court in the cases of K.N. Khanna 2000 (55) DRJ 544: 2000 (87) DLT 286 (DB) and Sushil Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Prem Gupta and Ors. 2013 (135) DRJ 341 (DB) are hereby overruled."
9 Section 8 of the Partition Act, 1893 is also reproduced hereunder:
"8. Orders for sale to be deemed decrees. Any order for sale made by the court under section SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 16 Of 18 2,3 or 4 shall be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1552)."
10 Further as per the directions given in the preliminary decree the defendants were also directed to render the details of account of rent so realized by the defendants from the premises as stated and subsequently final decree be also drawn consisting the stipulation that defendants shall be directed to render the accounts of the rent collected by them from the tenants in respect of the suit property.
11 Accordingly, the suit property bearing No.229495, Paharwali Gali, Dharampura, Chandni Chowk, Delhi shall be sold out in auction and the auction amount, after deducting necessary expenses, shall be distributed among the parties, as per their respective shares as determined in the preliminary decree and judgment dated 15.03.1995. The parties are, however, at liberty to invoke Section 3 of the Partition Act at the time of execution of the Final Decree.
12 The Final decree in this case is required to be engrossed upon nonjudicial papers as an order of sale in a partition suit passed under Section 8 of the Partition Act is an instrument of Partition under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act and requires to be stamped in accordance with Article 45 of the Schedule thereof. The parties are directed to place on record the non judicial stamp papers of requisite amount, as per Article 45, in accordance with their shares. SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 17 Of 18 13 If one party or more than one party fails to deposit the non judicial stamp papers of their respective shares, then the other party(ies) is/are at liberty to file the non judicial stamp paper of the value of the defaulting party and the amount so spent by such party(ies) shall be recoverable as cost and the auction amount of the defaulting party(ies) shall be reduced accordingly against the said cost and shall be paid to the party who bore the expenses of defaulting party.
14 Accordingly, the Final Decree be drawn upon only on the submission of the requisite Stamp papers. No order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly in terms of this judgment.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2018.11.28
15:53:03 +0530
Pronounced in the open court (Richa Sharma)
today on 27.11.2018 Civil Judge 01 (West)/Delhi
SCJ No. 612605/2016 Memo Devi Vs. Nem Chand Page no. 18 Of 18