Delhi District Court
Jaspal Singh vs Pyara Singh on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN,
DISTRICT JUDGE-2, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 476265/2015
CNR No. DLNE01-000274-2015
1. Jaspal Singh
2. Amarjeet Singh
Both sons of Late Pyara Singh
Both residents of A-2/874, First Floor,
Gali number 44, Som Bazar Road,
Four and Half Pushta,
Gamri Extension, Delhi. .....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Pyara Singh (deceased)
Through his legal representatives
2. Smt. Harjeet Kaur
D/o Late Pyara Singh
W/o Sh. Kulwant Singh
3. Smt. Manjeet Kaur
D/o Late Pyara Singh
W/o Sh. Trilochan Singh
Both residents of A-2/874, First Floor,
Gali number 44, Som Bazar Road,
Four and Half Pushta,
Gamri Extension, Delhi.
4. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur
D/o Late Pyara Singh
W/o Sh. Prit Pal Singh
CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 1 of 16
R/o 1638/2C, Gali number 5,
New Shimplapuri, Ludhiyana,
Punjab.
..... Defendants
Date of Institution : 17.04.2016
Date of Reserving Judgment : 10.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking the decree of partition alongwith decree of declaration and injunction.
2. Plaint 2(a). Brief facts, as stated in the plaint are that plaintiffs are the sons and defendant number 2 and 4 are the daughters of Late Sahdev Kaur. Defendant number 1 is the husband of Late Sahdev Kaur and father of plaintiff number 2 to 4. It is stated that the plaintiffs are residing at the first floor of built up property of 100 square yards, out of Khasra number 204, known as property A-2/ 874, situated at Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar in the abadi of Block-A, Gali number 44, Som Bazar Road, Four and Half Pusta, Gamri Extension, IIlaka Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as suit property). Plaintiff number 1 is in the occupation of small shop at ground floor, whereas, the defendant number 2 to 4 are living in the matrimonial homes. It is further stated that Late Sahdev Kaur was the sole and absolute owner of land area admeasuring 200 square yards, part of Khasra number 204, situated in the area of Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar, IIlaka Shahdara, Delhi. It is further stated that Late Sahdev Kaur during her lifetime sold 100 square yards of land out of the abovesaid plot CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 2 of 16 of 200 square yards to third party. The parties hereto alongwith Late Sahdev Kaur started living in the built up property of 100 square yards, out of Khasra number 204, known as property A-2/ 874, situated at Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar in the abadi of Block-A, Gali number 44, Som Bazar Road, Four and Half Pusta, Gamri Extension, IIlaka Shahdara, Delhi. It is further stated that Late Sahdev Kaur died interstate, on 08.10.2013, leaving behind following legal heirs, Sh. Pyara Singh (husband), Jaspal Singh (son), Amarjeet Singh (son), Smt. Harjeet Kaur (daughter), Smt. Manjeet Kaur (daughter) and Smt. Gurmeet Kaur (daughter). Parties to the present suit as such inherited 1/6 th undivided share in the suit property. It is further stated that out of love and affection, father of parties was given the control of the affairs of family after the death of Late Sahdev Kaur. It is further stated that in or about first week of March 2015, defendant number 1 called upon the plaintiffs to sign a relinquishment deed relinquishing their undivided share in the suit property in his favour, but, the plaintiffs refused to do the same being the lawful co-owners of suit property.
2(b). It is further stated that on the refusal of the plaintiffs, defendant number 1 had threatened them to sell the suit property after obtaining the relinquishment deed from his daughters. It is further stated that the relinquishment deed, dated 04.03.2015, was obtained fraudulently as plaintiffs were not mentioned as the legal heirs in the deed which is factually not correct. It is also stated that the plaintiffs are the legal owners of the suit property having 29.98% undivided share each as defendant number 1 on having being executed and registered in his favour the said relinquishment deed from defendant number 2 to 4 his undivided share stood enhanced to 16.66 % to 66.64 % and likewise respective shares of the plaintiffs stood enhanced on the death of defendant number 1. It is further stated that, on 29.03.2015, defendant number 3 got married and CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 3 of 16 plaintiffs asked the defendant number 1 to partition the property by metes and bounds, but, defendant number 1 had flatly refused to carry out the partition of suit property. It is further stated that defendant number 1 died on 10.05.2021, leaving behind his five class-I legal heirs. It is stated in the original plaint that the plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/6 th share in the suit property and therefore a decree of declaration alongwith the partition as well as decree of permanent injunction be passed. After the death of defendant number 1, plaintiffs got amended the plaint after moving the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is requested in the amended plaint that respective shares of plaintiffs had enhanced from 16.6 % to 29.8 % each being the class-I legal heirs.
3. Written statement 3(a). Common written statement has been filed on behalf of defendants in which apart from denying the allegations/contentions of the plaintiffs, it is stated by the defendants that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants as the suit property is the property of defendant number 1. Entire suit is based on concocted facts as defendant number 1 is the actual owner of suit property by way of registered General Power of Attorney as registered document vide registration number 1561, additional book number 4, volume number 197, pages 69 to 70 duly registered, on 28.01.1974. It is further stated that during his lifetime, defendant number 1 had sold the 100 square yards of land out of the abovesaid plot of 200 square yards of land to the third party. Again, during his lifetime defendant number 1, had transferred 50 square yards land to his wife Late Sahdev Kaur by way of registered General Power of Attorney duly registered, on 02.06.1998. It is further stated that plaintiff number 1 is the witness in the said registered General Power of Attorney. It is further stated that plaintiffs are well aware that defendant number 1 is the owner of suit property and CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 4 of 16 after the death of Smt. Sahdev Kaur, General Power of Attorney executed in her favour was also cancelled. It is further stated that even then, defendants are ready to divide the share of 50 square yards of land which was in the name of Late Sahdev Kaur. It is further stated that defendant number 1 being the owner of rest of 50 yards has absolute right over the said half portion of the property and he is also having 1/6th share in the other 50 square yards of the property.
4. Replication Replication to the written statement of defendants was filed by the plaintiffs which is essentially a reiteration of the averments made in the plaint and denial of the contentions in the written statement.
5. Issues On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts and if so, its effect? (OPD)
(ii) Whether the defendant number 1 is the owner of the suit property as alleged in the written statement and plaintiffs are only entitled to 1/6 th share of 50 square yard land which was in the name of Smt. Sahdev Kaur? (OPD)
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of partition of the suit property by metes and bounds to the tune of 1/6thshare of the property measuring 100 sq. yards?(OPP)
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration qua the relinquishment deed dated 04.03.2015, as prayed for? (OPP)
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 5 of 16
(vi) Relief.
6. Vide order, dated 13.11.2024, issue number (iv) was directed to be amended because of change in circumstances/ alleged shares of the parties/ amendment of the plaint as well as prayer clause (1) after the death of defendant number 1 which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration qua the relinquishment deed dated 04.03.2015, as prayed for in the prayer clause (i) of the amended plaint? (OPP)
7. Plaintiffs' evidence 7(a). Plaintiff has got led his piece of evidence. Sh. Amarjeet Singh has got examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the facts as are mentioned by the plaintiff in his plaint. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the documents that are site plan as Ex.PW1/1, agreement to sell, dated 23.01.1974 as Ex.PW1/2, receipt, dated 23.01.1974 as Ex.PW1/3, General Power of Attorney, dated 23.01.1974 as Ex.PW1/4, General Power of Attorney, dated 01.06.1998 as Ex.PW1/5, certified copy of relinquishment deed, dated 02.03.2015 as Ex.PW1/6. PW1 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for defendant. During the course of his cross examination, PW1 submitted that he was neither in possession of the original documents that are Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 nor he had issued any notice to defendant number 1 to produce originals. PW1 also submitted that his mother had never filed any case for specific performance of an agreement to sell against Sh. Maan Singh on the basis of Ex.PW1/2. PW1 admitted that his mother had not challenged the General Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/4 at any point of time.
CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 6 of 16 7(b). Sh. Prem Pal Singh, MTS from the office of Sub-Registrar Office, Seelampur, Delhi was examined as PW2. PW2 produced the summoned record that is relinquishment deed which was registered, on 04.03.2015 vide registration number 332, book number 1, volume number 4650, pages 92 to 98. PW2 deposed that he had seen the certified copy of said relinquishment deed Ex.PW1/6 and same is correct as per their record.
Defendants' evidence 7(c). After closing of plaintiffs' evidence, defendants have led their piece of evidence. Defendant number 1 had himself stepped into the witness box as DW1. DW1 had reiterated the same facts as are mentioned by him in his written statement. Thereafter, he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW1/A. DW1 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for plaintiff. During the course of his cross examination, DW1 submitted that he was in possession of the original of deed of agreement to sell, Ex.PW1/2 and the receipt Ex.PW1/3. DW1 was shown the documents Ex.PW1/4 (General Power of Attorney), Ex.PW1/2 (Deed of agreement to sell), Ex.PW1/3 (receipt) and Ex.PW1/5 (General Power of Attorney) and after seeing the same, DW1 submitted that the originals of abovesaid documents were in his possession. DW1 further submitted that he was the owner of the suit property prior to 23.01.1974. DW1 voluntarily submitted that he had purchased the suit property from Sh. Maan Singh. DW1 admitted that the plaintiff are also his biological sons. DW1 further submitted that no receipt of payment was issued by Maan Singh in his favour. DW1 further submitted that he had sold 100 square yards out of the suit property to Sh. Bhaag Singh in and around the year 1982-83.
8. Arguments I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of parties and perused the case file carefully.
CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 7 of 16 8(a). Written submissions have been filed on behalf of plaintiff. Apart from reiterating the contents of plaint, it is stated that in the month of March, 2015, defendant number 1 had asked the plaintiffs to sign a relinquishment deed with respect to their undivided shares in his favour, but, the same was refused by the plaintiffs. Defendant number 2 to 4 signed the relinquishment deed in favour of defendant number 1, on 04.03.2015, which has been specifically objected to by the plaintiffs as in the relinquishment deed, plaintiffs were not shown as the co-owners of the suit property. It is stated that the plaintiffs are also the class-I legal heirs of Late Sahdev Kaur. It is further stated that the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant number 2 to 4 had admittedly expired intestate, on 08.10.2013. It is further stated that in the heading of the written statement, mischievously, the word 'defendants' had been written though the same has been filed by defendant number 1 only. It is also stated that even the defence of defendant number 1 is not relevant. It is further stated that later on, father of the plaintiffs and remaining defendants that is the defendant number 1, had died intestate, on 10.05.2021 as such the entire undivided share in the suit property was succeeded by the plaintiffs and defendant number 2 to 4 in equal proportion. It is further stated that as of now that defendant number 2 to 4 had already relinquished their entire 1/6 th undivided share in favour of defendant number 1 and in that regard, additional issue was framed.
8(b). Thereafter, the testimonies of witnesses produced on behalf of plaintiffs have also been mentioned. It is stated that the plaintiffs have corroborated and proved the averments of the plaint to the effect that their late mother, namely, Sahdev Kaur was the sole and absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 200 square yards which she had purchased by entering into agreement to sell, dated 23.01.1974 which is Ex.PW1/2 as well as the other documents viz. payment receipt, registered General CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 8 of 16 Power of Attorney, dated 23.01.1974, which are Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 respectively. It is further stated that from the admission made by DW1 and the original documents produced by him from the directions of the Court, the case of the plaintiffs has been established. It is further stated that the entire ownership of the property was with Late Sahdev Kaur. It is further stated that it is quite clear that defendant numbe1 had never purchased the suit property from Sh. Maan Singh that is why no title documents were in existence in his favour. The title over the suit property pertains to Late Sahdev Kaur instead of defendant number 1. It is further stated that the document Ex.PW1/5 has no relevance in the eyes of law as it has been executed without any consideration and that Late Sahdev Kaur was the owner of 200 square yards of the land, by virtue of documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4.
8(c). It is further stated that later General Power of Attorney which is Ex.PW1/5 was executed only to get the electricity connection and nothing more. It is further stated that the entire defence of defendant number 1 is the bundle of false averments which is self contradictory as well. It is further stated that as defendant number 1 had already expired and other defendants had not filed any written statement so the case of plaintiffs now has been proved. It is also stated that the plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to the decree of permanent injunction and the plaintiffs are also entitled for the decree including all the claims made by them. It is further stated that the defendant number 1 on having been executed and registered in his favour, the said relinquishment deed from defendant number 2 to 4, his undivided share stood enhanced from 16.66 % to 66.64% and likewise the respective shares of plaintiffs also stood enhanced on the death of defendant number 1 that is from 16.66% to 29.98% each (as they succeeded the 16.66% undivided share each on the death of their mother and also additionally succeeded further 13.32% undivided share each on CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 9 of 16 the death of defendant number 1/father) as they are class-1 legal heirs of their parents.
8(d). Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of defendants in which it is stated that the defendant number 2 to 4 are the daughters of Late Sahdev Kuar. It is stated that initially, the suit was filed in which Late Pyara Singh was defendant number 1 and he had expired during the pendency of the suit, on 10.05.2021. It is further stated that Smt. Sahdev Kuar had also expired, on 08.10.2013, who was also owner of the property in question. After the death of defendant number 1, plaintiffs had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was allowed, but, no further evidence was led by the plaintiffs. It is further stated that after the death of defendant number 1, defendant number 2 to 4 and the plaintiffs being legal heirs are equally entitled for their respective shares of the property in question. It is further stated that the written arguments filed by the plaintiffs are not as per the facts and legal position of the suit. The demand raised by the plaintiffs are contrary to the facts and they are not entitled for the share as claimed by the plaintiffs in their written arguments. It is further stated that no share was enhanced from 16.66% to 29.98% after the death of defendant number 1. It is further stated that the plaintiffs and the defendant are equally entitled for 1/5th share each from the property of their parents. It is further stated that the plaintiffs and defendant number 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the defendant number 1 Late Pyara Singh, who had expired, on 11.05.2021 and also the mother Late Sahdev Kaur, who had expired, on 08.10.2013 and they all are thus equally entitled for the share from the property being legal heirs of their parents. It is further stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled to 29.98% share each in the suit property as claimed and are not entitled for the decree of the declaration as prayed in the prayer clause I of the plaint. It is further stated that the plaintiffs had CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 10 of 16 filed the present suit only to harass and humiliate the defendants and completely failed to prove anything against the defendants.
9. Reasons and analysis/finding After recording the gist of evidence led by both the parties, let me record the findings on each issue.
9(a). Issue number 1, that is, whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts and if so, its effect? Issue number 2, that is, whether the defendant number 1 is the owner of the suit property as alleged in the written statement and plaintiffs are only entitled to 1/6 th share of 50 square yard land which was in the name of Smt. Sahdev Kaur? Issue number 3, that is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of partition of the suit property by metes and bounds to the tune of 1/6 thshare of the property measuring 100 sq. yards? Issue number 4, that is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration qua the relinquishment deed dated 04.03.2015, as prayed for in the prayer clause (i) of the amended plaint? and Issue number 5, that is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? The onus to prove issues bearing numbers 1 and 2 is upon the defendants, while, onus to prove issues bearing numbers 3, 4 and 5 is upon the plaintiffs. All these issues are taken up together, being interconnected and having bearing upon each other. 9(b). Firstly, it is to be noted that plaintiff has to establish his case and he will not automatically succeed merely because of the failure of the defendant to establish his/her defence. A party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his/her submissions made in the plaint. There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. Also, CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 11 of 16 whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of "proved", "disproved" and "not proved", as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the evaluation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule, which makes the difference. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. In such a suit, plaintiff has to create a high degree of probability so as shift the onus on the defendants. Thereafter, the result of the suit depends upon the evaluation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule. Further, burden of proof in cases of partition as mentioned in Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Section 102 provides upon whom burden of proof lies. It has been provided that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail, if no evidence at all where given on either side. Section 103 of the Act provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person, and lastly Section 104 of the Act provides that the burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. Reliance is placed upon A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr, (2003) 8 SCC 752. 9(c). Now, again the expression "partition" under the Hindu law may comprehend, as pointed out by Lord Westbury in Appovier vs. Rama Subbaayyan, 11 Moo. Ind. App. 75 at p. 90 (P.C.) the division of title and CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 12 of 16 division of property. A physical division of the family property may be brought about either by a suit for partition,or in pursuance of an agreement between the members dividing the property. The division of right likewise may be a matter of agreement between the parties. The members of an undivided family may agree among themselves with regard to any particular property that they shall enjoy the same thereafter in certain defined shares. Such a definment of share effects a change in the character of the undivided property. On such a definement of the shares, family ceases to be joint and the members thereof cease to be joint tenants and become tenants-in-common. Under the Hindu Law, partition is of two kinds: (I) separation in status and (2) separation in interest or estate. While the first kind of separation is a notional separation, a second kind of partition is a physical division of the property of the family, giving each member of the family, separate possession of his share. Thus, partition is basically re-distribution or adjustment of pre-existing rights, among co- owners/coparceners, resulting in a division of lands or other properties jointly held by them, into different lots or portions and delivery thereof to the respective allottees. The effect of such division is that the joint ownership is terminated and the respective shares vest in them in severalty. A partition of a property can be only among those having a share or interest in it. A person who does not have a share in such property cannot obviously be a party to a partition. `Separation of share' is a species of 'partition'. When all co-owners get separated, it is a partition. Separation of share/s refers to a division where only one or only a few among several co- owners/coparceners get separated, and others continue to be joint or continue to hold the remaining property jointly without division by metes and bounds. Every adult coparcenar is also entitled to demand and to sue for partition at any time. Reliance is placed upon Chennananjappa v. Khaleel, 43 Mys. 375 and Waman v. Ganpat, 1936 Bom. 10 at p.12 and CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 13 of 16 Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17932/2009, decided on 21.08.2009 and 10 All. 272, 287 (P.C) alongwith Mulla, 2020 edition Hindu Law, 2023.
9(d). Adverting, to the facts of the present case, here plaintiffs were claiming shares in the property in question in the ratio of 1/6 th share each, alongwith decree of declaration qua the relinquishment deed, dated 04.03.2015, being forged and sham. It needs to be pin pointed here that these reliefs were claimed by the plaintiffs during the lifetime of the father of defendant number 1. Later on, after the death of defendant number 1, plaintiffs have started claiming enhanced share in the suit property, that too on the basis of the same relinquishment deed, dated 04.03.2015. This change in nature of claim/share/interest on the basis of same relinquishment deed by treating/applying/specifying the relinquishment deed in other way is neither explained nor comprehensible. Plaintiffs just kept on reiterating while, making amended claims, that there are change of circumstances, because of the death of defendant number 1, without any elaboration to the aspect that how death of one of the co-sharers made two co-sharers richer/or say have higher share than the other three similarly placed co-sharers. Admittedly, the suit property that is property bearing number A-2/ 874, situated at Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar in the abadi of Block-A, Gali number 44, Som Bazar Road, Four and Half Pusta, Gamri Extension, IIlaka Shahdara, Delhi belongs to the parents of the parties and they both had died intestate. With respect to factum of existence of aforesaid relinquishment deed earlier, plaintiffs were asking for declaring it forged and sham and now after the death of defenadnt number 1, they had started claiming enhanced share. As pointed out by the plaintiffs themselves the contents of relinquishment deed are not correct as to the percentage of shares. Undoubtedly, the precise nature of right CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 14 of 16 explained in such documents must be decisive. Though, at the same time, nomenclature given to such instruments is not decisive nor is the language which the parties may choose to employ in framing the document. Reliance is placed upon Tripta Kaushik v. Sub Registrar VI-A, Delhi & Anr, AIR ONLINE 2020 DEL 787, Ranganayakamma & Anr. v. K.S. Prakash (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 673, The Board of Revenue, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. V.M. Murugesa Mudaliar of Gudiyatham, 1955 SCC OnLine Mad 83. Admittedly, both the plaintiffs and defendant number 2 to 4 are brothers and sisters and the legal heirs of the owner/owners of the property in question who have died intestate. Thus, in view of the Hindu Succession Act, all of them are entitled to 1/5th each share in the suit property. Therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances and keeping in view the abovesaid discussion, issues bearing numbers 1, 2 and 4 are disposed of, while, the issue bearing number 3 and 5 are being disposed of in favour of plaintiffs as well as defendant number 2 to 4 as according to their lawful share.
10. Accordingly, in view of foregoing discussion of the case coupled with evidence adduced on record by plaintiffs, the suit of plaintiffs is decreed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants in the following terms:- (a) Plaintiff and defendant number 2 to 4 shall be entitled to 1/5 th each share in the suit property that is property bearing number A-2/ 874, situated at Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar in the abadi of Block-A, Gali number 44, Som Bazar Road, Four and Half Pusta, Gamri Extension, IIlaka Shahdara, Delhi. The preliminary decree of partition be passed accordingly. The parties shall be entitled to exclusive possession of their respective shares in terms of preliminary decree. However, the appropriate method of partition of suit property shall require further inquiry, which shall be conducted in due course. (b) A decree of permanent injunction is CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 15 of 16 passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, employees, nominees et cetera from selling, alienating, assigning, parting with the possession or creating any charge/right in the suit property that is property bearing number A-2/ 874, situated at Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar in the abadi of Block-A, Gali number 44, Som Bazar Road, Four and Half Pusta, Gamri Extension, IIlaka Shahdara, Delhi.
11. Preliminary decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. Put up for further proceedings/drawing of final decree on 14.04.2025.
Digitally signed byMANU MANU VEDWAN VEDWAN Date: 2025.03.11 15:54:59 +0530 (Manu Vedwan) District Judge-02 (North East District) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 11th March, 2025 CS No. 76265/2015 Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs. Pyara Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Page No. 16 of 16