Delhi High Court - Orders
Sumitra vs Ganga Ram And Others on 16 April, 2021
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~35(Original Side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 217/2021 & I.A. 5406/2021
SUMITRA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kaushik, Adv.
versus
GANGA RAM AND OTHERS ..... Defendants
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 16.04.2021
(Video-Conferencing)
CS(OS) 217/2021
1. Issue summons. Summons be served by all modes.
2. Written statement, accompanied by affidavit of admission and denial of documents, filed by the plaintiff, be filed within four weeks, with advance copy to learned counsel for the plaintiff, who may file replication thereto, accompanied by affidavit of admission and denial of the documents filed by the defendants, within two weeks thereof.
3. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings, admission and denial of documents and marking of exhibits, on 8th July, 2021.
I.A. 5406/2021 (under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908)
1. Issue notice returnable on 20th July, 2021, before Court.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(OS) 217/2021 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:20.04.2021 15:47:342. Reply to this application be filed within four weeks, with advance copy to learned counsel for the plaintiff, who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, within two weeks thereof.
3. This is a partition suit, pertaining to the following immovable properties, which are stated to be the ancestral properties of Sh. Udami Ram, the father of the plaintiff:
(a) Land admeasuring 36 Bigha 11 Biswas comprised in khasra No.10/2 (2-08), 11 (4-16), 12 (4-16), 19 (4-16), 20/1 (0-
04), 20/2 (4-12), 21(4-16), 15 (405), 16/1 (3-00), 25/2 (1-11), 6/2/3 (1-07), situated in the layout plan of urbanized area of Safipur Ranhola, Nangloi, New Delhi-110041.
(b) Residential property admeasuring 1 Bigha 9 Biswa comprised in khasra No.21/2 (1- 09), now vested in the gram sabha of village Safipur Ranhola, New Delhi urbanized area of Safipur Ranhola, Nangloi, New Delhi-110041 meant for the residential purpose by the Defendants No. 1 to 3, 7 and 9.
(c) Residential Plot admeasuring 500sq yds., in the old residential abadi of Safipur Ranhola, New Delhi-110041 meant for the residential purpose of Defendant No. 1, 2, 7 and 9.
4. Sh. Udami Ram, apparently, married twice. The plaintiff and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were children of the first marriage with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(OS) 217/2021 Page 2 of 5 Signing Date:20.04.2021 15:47:34 Smt. Roop Kaur. Subsequent to the demise of Smt. Roop Kaur, Sh. Udami Ram married Smt. Phoolo Devi (Defendant No. 6).
5. Defendant Nos. 7 to 10 are stated to be the legal heirs to Sh. Udami Ram properties, through Ms. Phoolo Devi.
6. Para 7 of the plaint sets out the various shares of the property of Sh. Udami Ram, among his various legal heirs, thus:
"7. That Sh. Udami Ram died intestate on 12- 11- 1991 and upon his demise, his share in the suit properties devolved upon his surviving class 1 legal heirs as per the tabulation chart, mentioned herein below. The copy of the death certificate of Sh. Udami Ram is annexed herewith as Document No.4.
Tabulation chart showing the share owned by the legal heirs of Late Sh. Udami Ram.
Serial Name of the Relation Share owned
No. legal heir with the by each legal
deceased heir
1. Sh. Ganga Ram Son 1/10th share
2. Sh. Tejpal Son 1/10th share
3. Sh. Rampal Son 1/10th share
4. Smt. Krishna Daughter 1/10th share
5. Smt. Jeet alias Daughter 1/10th share
Jeeto
6. Smt. Sumitra Daughter 1/10th share
Devi
7. Smt. Phullo Wife 1/10th share
8. Sh. Rajbir Son 1/10th share
9. Smt. Sunita Daughter 1/10th share
10. Sh. Ishant (Son of Grandson 1/20th share
Late Sh. Surendra
Singh S/o Late
Sh. Udami Ram)
11. Smt. Kavita (wife Daughter-in- 1/20th share
of late Sh. law
Surendra Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
CS(OS) 217/2021 Page 3 of 5
Signing Date:20.04.2021
15:47:34
S/o Late Sh.
Udami Ram
7. The plaintiff, therefore, claims to be entitled to 1/10th share in the property of Sh. Udami Ram.
8. Even so, it is alleged that Defendant Nos. 1,2,3,7 and 9, got the suit property mutated in their name, by submitting a false affidavit and claiming themselves to be the only legal heirs of Sh. Udami Ram, supressing the existence of the legal heirs of Sh. Udami Ram, through Smt. Roop Kaur.
9. Subsequently, the Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 have also been reflected as the owners of the suit property in the respective Khatouni, for the years, 2001-2002.
10. Alleging, therefore, that the mutation was effected by fraud and concealment of relevant facts, the plaintiff asserts that the mutation of the suit property in the names of Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, cannot visit the plaintiff with any adverse consequences.
11. It is in these circumstances that the following prayers have been made in the plaint:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:-
(a) Pass a decree of declaration declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the 1/10th share in the suit property situated in Urbanized area of village Saifipur Ranhola, New Delhi.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(OS) 217/2021 Page 4 of 5 Signing Date:20.04.2021 15:47:34
(b) Pass a final Decree for partition by metes and bounds of the suit property situated in Urbanized area of village Saifipur Ranhola, New Delhi between Plaintiff and the Defendants.
(c) Appoint a Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of Partition of the suit property by metes and bounds or by way of auction to pay the owalty, in case the suit property is unable to be partitioned by metes and bounds.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants along with the cost of the suit, in the interest of justice may also be passed."
12. In my view, the assertions in the plaint make out a prima facie case for directing status quo, regarding title and possession of the suit properties as, if any change is made therein, it may result in irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff. The consideration of balance of convenience would also, therefore, justify grant of ad interim injunction.
13. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, all parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the title and possession of the suit properties and not to carry out any change therein including any change in the nature of construction or otherwise.
14. Re-notify on 20th July, 2021 before Court.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J APRIL 16, 2021/ss Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(OS) 217/2021 Page 5 of 5 Signing Date:20.04.2021 15:47:34