Delhi District Court
Ram Dulari vs Jai Narain Pershad on 12 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010000011973
CS DJ No.: 17139/2016/1973
Smt. Ram Dulari (since deceased)
through Ram Dulari Charitable Trust,
At 26, New Rohtak Road, Delhi-110005.
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Jai Narain Prasad (since deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Devi Prasad,
Through his LR: Sh. Jitendra Prasad Aggarwal,
E-36, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi-110048.
2. Sh. Jainti Pershad (since deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Devi Prashad,
Through his LR: Sh. Gautam Aggarwal
C-430, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024.
3. Sh. Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal (since deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Devi Prashad,
Through his LRs:
a. Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal
R/o BN-79, Paschimi Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi-110088.
b. Sh. Bharat Aggarwal,
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal
CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 1 of 40
R/o 284, Steelmanville Road, NJ 08324, USA.
4. Smt. Kali Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Devi Pershad,
R/o 14-F Upper Floor,
Connaught Place, Delhi.
5. Smt. Vijaya Aggarwal (since deceased),
W/o Late Sh. Jagar Prasad,
R/o 225, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi-110025.
6. Sh. Pradip Aggarwal
7. Sh. Pranabh Aggarwal
8. Smt. Nirja Aggarwal
Defendant nos. 6 to 8 all S/o, D/o Late Sh. Jagat Pershad,
All R/o 225, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi-110025.
9. Sh. Matu Ram (since deceased)
S/o Late Manohar Lal,
Through his LRs
A. Sh. Mohinder Gupta (since deceased) through his LRs
I. Smt. Shakuntala Gupta (wife)
II. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta (son)
III. Sh. Sharad Kumar Gupta (son)
IV. Vikas Gupta (son)
All R/o 6 Underhill Road, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054.
B. Sh. Mahesh Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Matu Ram
R/o E-108, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048.
C. Sh. Romesh Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Matu Ram,
R/o 4170, Ahiran Gali, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110010.
D. Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupta, since deceased through his LRs
CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 2 of 40
I. Smt. Rani Gupta (wife)
II. Sh. Anurag Gupta (son)
Both R/o Flat No. 601-602, Tower A4,
Olive Country, Vasundhara,
Sector-5, Ghaziabad, UP-201012.
III. Smt. Anupama Aggarwal (daughter)
R/o S 8/110, Maqbool Alam Road,
Khajuri, Varanasi, UP-221001.
E. Sh. Deepak Gupta,
S/o Late Matu Ram,
R/o STC-1004, Shipra Suncity, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, UP.
10. Sh. Mai Dhan Gupta (since deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Manohar Lal,
Through his LRs:
A. Vinod Gupta (son)
42-44, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi-110013.
B. Sh. Lalit Gupta (son)
R/o E-9, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi-110028.
C. Sh. Sunil Gupta (son)
R/o E-78, Kailash Hills, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.
D. Sh. Arun Gupta (son)
R/o E-78, Kailash Hills, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.
11. Sh. Mai Dayal Aggarwal (since deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Manohar Lal,
Through his LRs:
A. Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal (since deceased) through his LRs.
I. Sh. Ashish Aggarwal (son)
B. Sh. Umesh Kumar (son)
C. Ms. Priti Jain (daughter)
D. Ms. Anju Aggarwal (daughter)
All R/o 42-44, Sunder Nagar, Delhi-110013.
CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 3 of 40
12. Sh. Prakash Chand,
S/o Late Sh. Sheo Prasad,
R/o CPWD-47, Safdarjung Development Area,
New Delhi-110016.
13. Sh. Onkey Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Sheo Prasad,
R/o C-2/48, Safdarjung Development Area,
New Delhi-110016.
14. Smt. Mino Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Budh Prakash,
R/o Moti Bhawan, Rani Bazar, Saharanpur, UP.
15. Smt. Shakuntla Devi,
W/o Sh. Gauri Shankar,
R/o 63, Mayo Road, Kanpur, UP.
16. Smt. Chander Kala,
W/o Late Sh. Mange Lal,
R/o 4804, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110055.
17. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Agarwal,
S/o Late Sh. Mange Lal,
R/o 4804, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110055.
18. Sh. Raman Agarwal,
S/o Late Sh. Mange Lal,
R/o C-199, Sector-49,
Noida-201301, UP.
19. Sh. Satish Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Mange Lal,
R/o B-16, Sector-36,
Noida-201301, UP.
20. Smt. Kamlesh Gupta,
D/o Late Sh. Mange Lal,
R/o W-106, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi-110048.
CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 4 of 40
21. Smt. Usha Rani Goel,
W/o Sh. Surinder Prakash Goel,
R/o Hirdey Bhawan, Bhadrapura, Bareilly UP.
22. Ms. Malti Khaitan,
W/o Sh. Dinesh Khaitan,
R/o 67, Worli Sea Face,
Mumbai-400 030. ......Defendants
Date of institution : 06.09.1973
Date of preliminary decree : 19.10.1978
Judgment reserved on : 26.07.2024
Date of final decree : 12.08.2024
JUDGMENT
In our vast legal jurisprudence, few cases can claim the distinction of being half a century old and the present matter is one such case. A case, which started as a straightforward legal dispute has spanned through five decades with each year making it more complex. The journey of this case began in the year 1973 involving pivotal issues of the right of the plaintiff in the joint family properties and their consequent division. The prolonged nature of this litigation speaks loud about the complexity of the issues involved, both legal and factual. 51 years later, I aim to culminate these proceedings with the hope that it will put all the issues to rest.
Factual matrix:
2. On 06.09.1973, the plaintiff, Smt. Ram Dulari (now deceased), filed this suit for partition claiming her 25% share in the joint properties owned by Late Rai Sahib Chiranji Lal. In the partition suit involving the descendants of Late Rai Sahib Chiranji Lal, the CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 5 of 40 preliminary decree that was issued on 19.10.1978 ascertained and declared the shares of the parties involved. The said preliminary decree is reproduced as under:
"This suit was instituted by Shrimati Ram Dulari, widow of Om Prakash, to obtain a decree for partition of properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' appended to the plaint and other property left by R.S. Charanji Lal or acquired from that property which might be in possession of descendants of Manohar Lal, Devi Pershad and Sheo Pershad, sons of R.S. Charanji Lal, and for separate allocation of her one-fourth share in all the joint properties. She also laid claim to a sum of Rs.75,000/- lying in deposit and stated to be due to her as well as compensation against defendant 1 to 8 regarding joint property used by them to be detriment of the other joint-owners. It was further prayed by her that liability of the joint property regarding the decree in Suit No.378 of 1970 may be determined and a decree for rendition of accounts of the income actually received and the income which could be received from the joint property be passed. Jai Narain Pershad, Jainti Pershad, Jagdish Pershad, Ram Kali Devi, Vijay Agarwal, Pardeep Kumar, Pranabh Kumar, Neerja (defendant 1 to 8), Mai Dhan Gupta (defendant No.10), Parkash Chand, Onkey Agarwal (defendant 12 and 13), Chander Kala, Rajinder Kumar Agarwal, Satish Agarwal and Raman Lal Agarwal (defendant 16 to 19) filed their written statement. Defendants 3 to 8 admitted in their pleadings that Ram Dulari was widow of Om Prakash and entitled to one-fourth share in the immovable and movable properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. Similar admissions were made by defendants 12, 13 and 16 to 19. Defendant 1, 2 and 10 denied that she had one-fourth share in the joint property. A few of the defendants said that there were some properties other than those mentioned in the plaint as were joint of the parties and liable to partition and urged that the suit was bad for seeking partial partition. Another issue arising from some of the written-statements was about the respective shares of the parties in the properties involved in the suit.
Defendant No.10, Mai Dhan Gupta, died during the pendency of the suit proceedings and Pushpa Devi, his widow, and Vinod Gupta, Lalit Gupta, Sunil Gupta and Arun Gupta, his sons, and Indira Yadav, his daughter, were brought on record as his legal representatives. In the same manner Bimla Devi, widow of Mai Dayal Aggarwal, (defendant No.11), and Rakesh Agarwal and Umesh Agarwal, his sons, and Priti Jain and Anju Agarwal, his daughters, were substituted as his legal representatives.
On 24.7.1978 an application dated 22.7.1978 CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 6 of 40 (I.A.2590) was moved by the plaintiff and 21 other parties to the suit submitting that a decree for partition of the properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint be passed and the shares, as stated in the plaint, be allotted to the parties. There was a sequel to this application, I.A.2519 of 1978, filed by the plaintiff on 24.7.1978 and I.A.3085/78 wherein it was stated that the defendants, excepting defendant no. 3 and 4, who had previously contested the plaintiff's prayer, had withdrawn their opposition and all the disputes between the parties stood settled. Even defendants 3 and 4 did not raise and controversy about the plaintiff's one-fourth share in the properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' and there was no impediment left for the passing of a preliminary decree for partition o the properties in the said Schedule. The applications have been opposed only by defendant No.3.
Mino Devi (defendant No.14), Shakuntala Devi (defendant No.15), Usha Rani (defendant No.20), Kamlesh Gupta (defendant No.21) and Malti Khaitan (defendant No.22) did not sign I.A.2509 but they have filed affidavits lending full support to it. Shri S.P. Aggarwal, their counsel, has also stated that a preliminary decree be passed as prayed for in I.As.2509 and 2519 of 1978.
The ladies aforesaid do not claim any share in the joint properties because of their already having relinquished their rights and interests in the same.
Miss Manju Malhotra, Advocate for defendant 5 to 8, stated on 20.9.1978 that her clients, defendant 5 to 8, had no objection to a preliminary decree being passed as prayed for by the plaintiff. It has already been stated that defendant No.3 had admitted the claim of the plaintiff as to her having one-fourth share in the properties in Schedule A and he did not contest the existence of the cause of action for the partition of those properties. His counsel affirmed in his statement dated 21.8.1978 that the said defendant had six per cent share in the properties in suit and that the said properties were incapable of division between the co-sharers by metes and bounds. Defendant No.4 has admitted in her written statement that the plaintiff was the widow of Om Prakash and had one-fourth undivided share in the properties in Schedule A. She has admitted in her statement dated 16.10.1978 that her husband had one-fourth share and the same has descended on her and her sons.
The applicants pray for a preliminary decree for the partition of the properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said Rule reads as follows :-CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 7 of 40
"6. (1) Where admission of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any state of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced."
We have, as stated above, admissions of all the parties to the suit in writing as to the properties specified in Schedule 'A' to the plaint being liable to partition. There is no dispute again as to the respective shares of the parties in the joint properties.
The plaintiff has said that she would have her share in such properties other than those given in Schedule 'A', as may be found to be joint. She has not, however, given details of any such properties. She has not, however, given details of any such properties. Defendant No.3 has urged that properties noted in Schedule (I) to his written statement are also joint. This claim is controverted by some other parties to the litigation. The matters still in dispute shall have to be given a trial and determined in due course. But so far as the properties in Schedule 'A' passed straightaway vide rule 6 of Order 12 quoted above. Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel for Jagdish Pershad (defendant No.3) has urged that his admission of the plaintiff's claim relating to the properties in Schedule 'A' is conditional and it cannot be accepted unless the properties in Schedule (O) to his written statement are also made a subject of the preliminary decree. I do not find, however, any conditions attached to the aforesaid admission. Shri Sanghi has contended further that a party's admission has to be read as a whole, not piecemeal. There can be no dispute with this principle because a part of the admission read out of context may turn out to be misleading. The admission of Jagdish Pershad sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff and the other defendants is not, however, of that type. It has been conceded by him as well as by all the other parties to the litigation that the properties in Schedule 'A' to the plaint are joint and the statement of Jagdish Pershad as to the properties in Schedule (I) to his written statement also being joint, controverted by other parties, stands on a different footing. The acceptance of the first statement alone would not lead to any distortion of facts and consequent injustice.
It was argued by Shri Sanghi that Shrimati Neeraja, CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 8 of 40 defendant No.8, had not supported the plaintiff's claim fully in her written statement and the affidavit filed on her behalf by her mother Smt. Vijay Agarwal, defendant No.5, later in should not be accepted because she has not placed on the record the power of attorney alleged to have been given to her by Neerja Agarwal on the basis whereof she purports to act and the affidavit is defective also because in the said affidavit Smt. Vijay Agarwal speaks on her own behalf alone. This objection has in the meantime been removed by showing the original power of attorney to the court as well as filing its photostat copy on the record and by the statement of the counsel for Shrimati Vijay Agarwal, Miss Manju Malhotra, to the effect that defendant No.8 too endorse the applications, I.As 2509 and 2518, for the passing of a preliminary decree and agrees that the shares of the parties are as per the statement attached to I.A. 2509/78.
The learned counsel for defendant No.3 wants me not to act on the power of attorney of Neerja unless some witness to prove its execution is produced by the mother of the plaintiff. But vide section 85 of the Evidence Act the Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney and to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public was so executed and authenticated and I have no valid reason to act against this presumption. Neeraj's mother's interests do not clash with her own and the preliminary decree asked for shall be as much to her advantage as to that of any other co-owner of the relevant properties Jagdish Prashad's worry about the genuineness of the power of attorney is a transport sham, and he wants to serve his own end of delaying the proceedings by its smoke screen.
One more contention raised by Shri Sanghi is that Mino Devi, Shakuntala Devi, etc. speak of relinquishment of their shares but this could not be done without properly registered deeds. But they speak as a matter of fact of family settlement which took place in the past and there is no transfer being effected now as should call for registration. (See Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, A.I.R. 1976 S.C.
807).
In the circumstances of the case a preliminary decree for the partition of properties specified in Schedule 'A' to the plaint is hereby passed and it is declared that the parties' shares therein are as follow :-
Sl.No. Name of the Parties Share percentage
1. Smt. Ram Dulari, widow of Shri Om 25 CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 9 of 40 Prakash, House No.26, Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2. Jai Narain Pershad, son of Shri Devi Parshad, Upper Floor, 14-F Connaught Place, New Delhi 6
3. Jainti Pershad, son of Shri Devi Pershad, Upper Floor, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 6
4. Jagdish Pershad son of Shri Devi Pershad, Upper Floor, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 6
5. Smt. Ram Kali Devi, widow of Shri Devi Pershad, Upper floor 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1
6. Smt. Vijay Agarwal, widow of Shri Jagat Pershad, Upper floor, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1.5
7. Shri Pardeep Kumar, son of late Shri Jagat Pershad, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1.5
8. Shri Pranabh Kumar son of late Shri Jagat Pershad, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1.5
9. Smt. Neerja d/o. Shri Jagat Pershad, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1.5
10. Shri Matu Ram son of late Shri Manohar Lal, 4170 Gali Ahiran, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. 8.33
11. Smt. Pushpa Devi, widow of Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4763 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.67
12. Shri Vinod Gupta, son of late Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4764 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.66 CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 10 of 40
13. Shri Lalit Gupta, son of late Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4764 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.66
14. Shri Sunil Gupta, son of late Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4764 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.66
15. Shri Arun Gupta, son of late Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4764 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.66
16. Smt. Bimla Devi, widow of late Shri Mai Dayal Agarwal, deceased defendant No.11, 4763 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.77
17. Shri Rakesh Agarwal, son of late Shri Mai Dayal Agarwal, deceased defendant No.11, 4763 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.78
18. Shri Umesh Agarwal, son of late Shri Mai Dayal Agarwal, deceased defendant No.11, 4763 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.78
19. Shri Parkash Chand, son of Shri Shive Parshad, B-2/60 Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. 8.34
20. Shri Onkey Agarwal, son of Shri Shive Pershad, 2/C-48 Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. 8.33
21. Smt. Mino Devi, widow of Shri Budh Parkash, Moti Bhavan, Rani Bazar, Saharanpur. Nil
22. Smt. Shkuntala Devi, wife of Shri Gauri Shankar, 663 Mayo Road, Kanpur. Nil
23. Smt. Chander Kanta, widow of late CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 11 of 40 Shri Mange Lal, 4804, Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.09
24. Shri Rajinder Kumar, son of late Shri Mange Lal, 4804 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.08
25. Shri Satish Chand, son of late Shri Mange Lal, 4804, Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.08
26. Shri Raman Lal, son of late Shri Mange Lal, 4804 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.08
27. Smt. Usha Rani Goel, w/o Surinder Parkash Goel, c/o Hirdey Bhavan, Biharipura, Bareilly (U.P.) Nil.
28. Smt. Kamlesh Gupta, daughter of Shri Mange Lal, wife of Shri Radhe Mohan, resident of W-106, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Nil
29. Smt. Malti Khaitan, wife of Shri Dinesh Khaitan, 67 Worli Sea Face, Bombay. Nil Since the immovable properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint are incapable of division by metes and bounds, the partition shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Partition Act.
The case to be listed for further directions before the Deputy Registrar on 23.10.1978."
3. The preliminary decree was challenged and vide order dated 03.08.1979, the words "of section 2" in the last paragraph were to be directed to be deleted from the decree and further, it was left to the trial court to decide if the properties in the schedule are joint or not. It is imperative to note that the decree as to the shares of the parties remained unchanged.
CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 12 of 404. In further pursuance of effecting the partition of the properties, vide order dated 17.03.1999, the Ld. Predecessor of this court had ordered inter-se auction of the properties and had appointed a Commissioner for the said purpose. The order dated 17.03.1999 is as follows:
"On 19th October, 1978 a preliminary decree for partition was passed by the court wherein shares of the parties to the suit were declared. It was held by the court that as the immovable properties mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint were incapable of division by metes and bounds, the partition shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Partition Act. For the last about 20 years the parties have not been able to agree on the valuation on which the properties can be sold and consequently the sale proceeds of the properties have not been distributed to the parties to the suit in accordance with the share declared in the preliminary decree.
On 16th December, 1998 the plaintiff had placed on record the valuation of five properties situated in Naya Bazar, Deputy Ganj, Nabi Karim and Pahari Dheeraj, Delhi. All the parties to the suit except Mr. Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal were willing to accept the valuation of those properties at Rs. 60 lacs. Mr. Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal has 6.25 % share in the properties. The Court, therefore, on that date directed Mr. Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal to place his own valuation on record so as to ascertain as to whether the share could be paid to him.
Today, Mr. Kelkar, learned counsel for defendant no.3 states that the said defendant will not be able to get the property valued nor the valuation placed by the plaintiff was acceptable to him. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that properties are put to private auction which is acceptable to all the parties to the suit and the money so received is distributed to the parties to the suit in accordance with the share declared in the preliminary decree.
I, therefore, appoint Mr. Arun Batta, Advocate, present in court, as the observer to supervise the auction which will be held inter se the parties. Let the parties be present in the office of Mr. Arun Batta, Advocate on 24.4.99 at 12:00 CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 13 of 40 Noon for conducting the auction.
The properties mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint will be individually put to auction and 10 % of the bid amount will be deposited by the successful parties in respect of each of the properties with the observer immediately after the auction. If any party bids for more than one property then he will be at liberty to pay 10% of the aggregate value of the said properties by means of one Pay Order/Bank Draft.
The parties either themselves or through their representatives will be at liberty to be present at the time of auction. The observer will be paid a fee of Rs.7,500/- in the first instance to supervise the auction. A copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for the parties as well as to the observer.
List this case for awaiting report of the observer on 10 th May, 1999."
5. On 10.05.1999, the court was informed that the auction could not take place as few properties had already been sold with the consent of the parties. The court, thus, ordered fresh auction after excluding the properties already sold. However, vide order dated 22.09.2009 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt in original jurisdiction, the auction was set aside on the ground that the Commissioner could not have proceeded to accept a single bid in the absence of valuation of the assets. The said order is as under:
"1. This order proposes to dispose of certain applications which have been pending in this case for over 9 years they mainly concern the conduct of an auction, under orders of the court on 21-3-2000.
2. In view of the order made with consent of counsel for the parties. More particularly, the third defendant (who is also present in court), there is no need to discuss in detail the contours of the controversy. The plaintiff sought partition of suit properties as shown in Schedule 'A' annexed with the plaint. The court by its judgment dated 19-10-1978 declared the CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 14 of 40 shares of the concerned parties, and directed that a preliminary decree should be drawn. Concededly, the plaintiff was held entitled to 25% of the share in Schedule A properties she had the largest share. The entitlement of the other parties too were delineated. The third defendant, Jagdish Parshad, was held entitled to 6%, it is not disputed that due to death in the interregnum, this increased to 6.25%.
3.There appears to have been a deadlock, and nothing happened for over two decades. On 16-12- 1998, the court directed the third defendant to ascertain the value of his share, to enable the other parties to decide whether that amount could be paid he appears to have been contesting party. The counsel for some other parties had indicated the value of the five properties being shown as Serial Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 as shown in Schedule 'A' at Rs. 60 lakhs. The court noted, on 18-1-1999 that no valuation had been made, and the response to the valuation of the other parties too was not disclosed. The order dated 17-3-1999, after noting the third defendant's inability to accept the valuation, and also the inability to value his share, appointed a commissioner to conduct the auction; the court directed that individual properties in schedule A should be auctioned, and 10% of the bid amount was to be deposited by the successful bidder. The later order dated 10-5-1999 noted that the auction had not yet been conducted; it also recorded the parties contention that properties mentioned in Sl. Nos. 2,3,4,6,7 and 16 had already been sold and such the same are not required to be sold in auction. Again, on 12th August, 1999, the court noted that nothing happened and directed the previous orders to be complied with. On 6-12-1999, the court noted that the commissioner appointed earlier did not appear to be interested, and appointed a new commissioner (an official of the court) to conduct the auction, within 45 days. The same direction was repeated by the subsequent order of 13-3-2000; no auction to be held in accordance with the previous directions within 10 days, the parties were required to be present before the commissioner for the purpose on 21-3-2000.
4. The commissioner by his report, states that an CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 15 of 40 auction proceedings was held on 21-3-2000, when some parties wanted the auction to be put off due to illness of plaintiff and unavailability of certain defendants. The commissioner, perhaps feeling compelled by the court's order, declined the request. Resultantly, the parties who were present except the third defendant, did not participate in the auction. The third defendant however, did so, and submitted bids for al the schedule A properties; the total amount worked out of Rs.32,75,000/-. Since this was the lone bid, the commissioner accepted it.
5. In the meantime, the plaintiff had filed an application to postpone the auction, due to her illness, the application was supported by a medical certificate. She was at that time an old lady. Other application were also filed by some defendants, suggesting that some properties should be excluded from the auction. These remained pending and the auction went ahead.
6. All the applications concerning the conduct of auction including the request for its postponement, as well as objection to the report, and the request for excluding some properties, remained pending in court, for over nine years. These were heard by the court. During the hearing, the plaintiffs relied on the judgment of the court reported as Rani Aloka Dudhoria vs. Gautam Dudhoria 2009 (3) JT 626, where, recollecting the law on the subject, and interpreting Section 2 and 6 of the Partition Act, 1893, the Superme Court ruled on the mandatory obligation to fix a reserve price for the auction, before proceeding further. The judgment reiterated the principle recognised in Malati Ramachandra Raut vs Madhavarao Vasudeo Joshi 1991 Supp (1) 321 that the court is under a duty to order valuation of the shares of the party asking for sale of property, under section 2 and offer to sell the shares to the shareholders, applying for leave to buy them.
7. After some hearing Ms. Acharya, learned counsel on instructions on behalf of the third defendant, stated that there may be some distinguishing feature, in this case; however, the binding nature of the law declared in Rani Aloka Dudhoria and Malati CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 16 of 40 Ramachandra Raut were not disputed. It was however requested that since the matter has remained unresolved for over three decades, the court should put a mechanism to speed up the process.
7. In view of the above discussion, submissions made, and the law declared by the Suprme Court, the auction conducted by the Commissioner, in this case on 21-3-2000 cannot be sustained, it is hereby set aside. The application IA 2583/2000; 1967/2000; 9396/2000 and 9397/2000 and unnumbered IAs filed by Defendant 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and LRs of Defendant no. 9 are accordingly disposed.
8. List the case in main list on 5 th October, 2009 for further proceedings to consider the parties submissions regarding fixation of modalities to value the properties and further directions towards auctioning them."
6. From the above, it is clear that despite order of inter-se auction, the properties could not be sold and divided. Now, by way of applications under consideration, the parties have again sought inter-se auction of the properties.
Applications:
7. Following applications are pending adjudication in the present suit:
(a) applications dated 27.10.2020 filed on behalf of defendant No.3;
(b) application dated 05.04.2022 filed on behalf of defendant No.3A;
(c) application dated 02.12.2023 filed on behalf of defendant no.3A;
and
(d) application dated 04.02.2023 filed on behalf of all the parties CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 17 of 40 except defendant no.3A.
8. Vide application dated 27.10.2020, defendant no. 3 has sought appropriate directions for inter-se auction. Further, vide application dated 05.04.2022, defendant no. 3A has sought necessary directions to restore inter-se auction conducted by appointed commissioner as per order dated 17.03.1999 for affecting partition by inter-se sale of rest properties and passing of final decree. Vide application dated 02.12.2023, defendant no. 3A had sought valuation of properties to be fixed. Further, vide application dated 04.02.2023, all the parties except defendant no.3A had sought appropriate directions under Section 3 of Partition Act.
Main Dispute:
9. The main point of contention in the present case is what properties should be put to auction and what properties should be excluded from auction.
Analysis:
Application dated 02.12.2023 at serial no. (c) :
10. By way of application dated 02.12.2023, defendant no. 3A has sought valuation of the properties. However, since the valuation of the properties has already been completed and the reports dated 28.05.2024, 01.06.2024 and 05.06.2024 of the Ld. Valuer have been filed on record, the application dated 02.12.2023 requires no further consideration. Therefore, the same stands disposed off.
CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 18 of 40Applications dated 27.10.2020, 05.04.2022 and 04.02.2023 at serial nos.
(a), (b) and (d):
11. The applications dated 27.10.2020, 05.04.2022 and 04.02.2023, although filed by different parties, essentially seek the same relief i.e. of putting the properties to inter-se auction and thus, consequently, effecting the partition. I will now be deciding the said applications.
Shares of the parties:
12. The preliminary decree dated 19.10.1973 along with the shares ascertained for each party under that decree has attained finality and is well admitted by all the parties. The shares of the parties are enumerated in Table No. 1 as follows:TABLE NO. 1
Sl.No. Name of the Parties Share percentage
1. Smt. Ram Dulari, widow of Shri Om 25 Prakash, House No.26, Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2. Jai Narain Pershad, son of Shri Devi Parshad, Upper Floor, 14-F Connaught Place, New Delhi 6
3. Jainti Pershad, son of Shri Devi Pershad, Upper Floor, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 6 CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 19 of 40
4. Jagdish Pershad son of Shri Devi Pershad, Upper Floor, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 6
5. Smt. Ram Kali Devi, widow of Shri Devi Pershad, Upper floor 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1
6. Smt. Vijay Agarwal, widow of Shri Jagat Pershad, Upper floor, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1.5
7. Shri Pardeep Kumar, son of late Shri Jagat Pershad, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1.5
8. Shri Pranabh Kumar son of late Shri Jagat Pershad, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1.5
9. Smt. Neerja d/o. Shri Jagat Pershad, 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 1.5
10. Shri Matu Ram son of late Shri Manohar Lal, 4170 Gali Ahiran, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. 8.33
11. Smt. Pushpa Devi, widow of Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4763 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.67
12. Shri Vinod Gupta, son of late Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4764 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.66
13. Shri Lalit Gupta, son of late Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4764 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.66
14. Shri Sunil Gupta, son of late Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4764 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.66 CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 20 of 40
15. Shri Arun Gupta, son of late Shri Mai Dhan Gupta, defendant No.10, 4764 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 1.66
16. Smt. Bimla Devi, widow of late Shri Mai Dayal Agarwal, deceased defendant No.11, 4763 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.77
17. Shri Rakesh Agarwal, son of late Shri Mai Dayal Agarwal, deceased defendant No.11, 4763 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.78
18. Shri Umesh Agarwal, son of late Shri Mai Dayal Agarwal, deceased defendant No.11, 4763 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.78
19. Shri Parkash Chand, son of Shri Shive Parshad, B-2/60 Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. 8.34
20. Shri Onkey Agarwal, son of Shri Shive Pershad, 2/C-48 Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. 8.33
21. Smt. Mino Devi, widow of Shri Budh Parkash, Moti Bhavan, Rani Bazar, Saharanpur. Nil
22. Smt. Shkuntala Devi, wife of Shri Gauri Shankar, 663 Mayo Road, Kanpur. Nil
23. Smt. Chander Kanta, widow of late Shri Mange Lal, 4804, Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.09
24. Shri Rajinder Kumar, son of late Shri Mange Lal, 4804 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.08 CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 21 of 40
25. Shri Satish Chand, son of late Shri Mange Lal, 4804, Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.08
26. Shri Raman Lal, son of late Shri Mange Lal, 4804 Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 2.08
27. Smt. Usha Rani Goel, w/o Surinder Parkash Goel, c/o Hirdey Bhavan, Biharipura, Bareilly (U.P.) Nil.
28. Smt. Kamlesh Gupta, daughter of Shri Mange Lal, wife of Shri Radhe Mohan, resident of W-106, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Nil
29. Smt. Malti Khaitan, wife of Shri Dinesh Khaitan, 67 Worli Sea Face, Bombay. Nil
13. Some parties in the above list have also expired since the date of passing of the preliminary decree. It is clarified that the shares of these deceased parties will be inherited by their respective legal heirs, with each lineal heir receiving one unit of the share.
Mode of partition:
14. As per the schedule appended to the petition for partition, there are 23 properties belonging to the parties that are about 29 in number. The said properties are as under:CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 22 of 40 Table No. 2 1 House No. 4058-59, Naya Bazaar, Delhi
2 Building on Plot No. 6, Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 3 House no. 1315-1316, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 4 House no. 116, Sarai Rohilla, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi 5 House no. 5697, F-8 Connaught Place, New Delhi 6 House no. 5698-99, F9, F10 Connaught Place, New Delhi 7 House no. 5700, F11, Connaught Place, New Delhi 8 House no. 5701-2, F14, Connaught Place, New Delhi 9 House no. 4665-4671, Deputy Ganj, Delhi. 10 House no. 10592-10607, Nabi Karim, Delhi 11 House no.4338-39, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. 12 House No. 4340-41 and 42, Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. 13 One plot Jamalpur, Sonipat (Haryana) 14 One house in Bahadurgarh City, District Rohtak (Haryana) 15 One house in Bahadurgarh City, District Rohtak (Haryana) 16 House no. 4316/16, Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi 17 House no.4170, Gali Harian, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. 18 House nos. 4171-72, Gali Harian, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. 19 House No.4357-59, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi.
20 Land at Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
21 Bhatta Khasra Land, Dholi Pio, Mathura (U.P.) 22 One Khoti and land at Garhi and Kolagarh, Dehradun (U.P.) 23 One Kothi and Land, Dharampura, Ajabpur, Dehradun (U.P.) CS DJ No.17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 23 of 40
15. The list of properties has not been contested by any party. Therefore, it is concluded that the properties listed in Table No. 2 are to be divided among the co-owners. Although dividing the properties by metes and bounds would generally be the preferred method, the current situation involves approximately 23 properties that need to be divided among 26 family members.
Further, private auction was ordered to be conducted vide order dated 17.03.1999 although, it was subsequently set aside on technical grounds. Currently, all the parties agree to proceed with an inter-se auction, provided a minimum reserve price is fixed.
16. The law regarding partition by sale of properties instead of by metes and bounds is contained in Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 which provides 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 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."
17. Therefore, it is settled law that when the properties cannot be divided by metes and bounds and it is more CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 24 of 40 advantageous for the co-owners to sell the properties, the court may direct a sale of the said properties. In light of this principle and the unanimous agreement of all parties involved, the court is persuaded that the properties should be auctioned to facilitate their equitable division among all parties.
Properties to be auctioned:
18. The next issue for consideration is which properties should be put to auction. It is an admitted position of all the parties that out of the total 23 properties, those listed at serial numbers 9 and 12 have been sold with the permission of the court. It is further admitted by all the parties that the property listed at serial number 20 has been acquired by the government. Further, vide order dated 01.05.2024, all the parties had admitted that properties at serial nos. 2, 9, 12 and 20 are not in dispute and further that properties at serial nos. 13, 14, 15 and 21 cannot be identified. Further, the parties had sought time to find the exact address of property mentioned at serial no. 23, which they could not provide. Thus, property at serial no. 23 is also not identified. Consequently, properties listed at serial numbers 2, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21 and 23 are excluded from the auction as they are not in dispute or have been sold with the permission of the court or they cannot be identified.
19. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that over time, the circumstances regarding each property have changed. Many properties have been sold and resold, resulting in third parties CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 25 of 40 acquiring rights to them.
20. Defendant No. 3A contends that properties listed at serial numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 16 were excluded from the auction vide order dated 10.05.1999, and therefore should not be included in the current auction. Conversely, Ld. Counsel for all parties except Defendant No. 3A, argued that there was an oral family settlement whereby Defendant No. 3A and a few other parties were allocated property No. 16, while the remaining parties were given properties Nos. 17, 18, and 19 and that consequently, all four properties--16, 17, 18, and 19--were sold in accordance with the oral settlement. She further argued that Defendant No. 3A is, thus, estopped from reneging on the oral settlement. Consequently, she argued that properties Nos. 17, 18, and 19 should also not be put to auction if property No. 16 is being excluded. She further contended that if, in case, property Nos. 17, 18, and 19 are included in the auction, then property No. 16 should likewise be also put up for auction, as all the four properties were part of the same oral settlement.
21. It is the case of all the parties except Defendant No. 3A that the oral settlement in question occurred among the four sons of Rai Sahib Chiranji Lal, in accordance with their father's wishes. They further asserted that this oral settlement was documented in a memorandum dated 15.03.2000. However, it is admitted by all parties that Defendant No. 3 (the father of Defendant No. 3A) did not sign this memorandum. Since the dispute is between Defendant No. 3 (now Defendant No. 3A) and CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 26 of 40 the other parties, a memorandum that was not signed by Defendant No. 3 cannot be enforced against him. Defendant No. 3 (now Defendant No. 3A) cannot be bound by a document he did not sign. Additionally, the date of the alleged oral settlement has not been specified.
22. The second argument presented by all parties except Defendant No. 3A, is that Defendant No. 3A has already acted on the oral settlement by selling his share of the property listed at serial number 16, and therefore, he is estopped from reneging on his commitment. They contended that since Defendant No. 3A has benefited from the oral settlement, he must also adhere to its remaining terms. The sale deeds for the property at serial number 16 indicate that Defendant No. 3 sold an 18.75% share, whereas, according to the preliminary decree, he was entitled to only a 6.25% share. While it is true that Defendant No. 3 sold more than his entitled share, this does not substantiate the existence of an oral settlement that included properties listed at serial numbers 17, 18, and 19. The fact that Defendant No. 3 sold a greater share than his entitlement does not validate the sales of properties Nos. 17, 18, and 19. Additionally, as per the previous order dated 24.10.2019, it has been categorically held that the existence of the oral settlement has not been proven. The court has also noted that the claim of an oral settlement was raised many years later and appears to be a mere afterthought.
23. In view of the above, it is concluded that all the parties except defendant no. 3A have failed to prove the validity CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 27 of 40 of the memorandum or demonstrate that property No. 16 was sold pursuant to the alleged oral settlement. Therefore, the court finds that the oral settlement, as asserted by all the parties except Defendant No. 3A, has not been substantiated, thus, no estoppel applies on defendant No. 3A. However, it is established that Defendant No. 3A has indeed sold a share in property No. 16 that exceeds his entitlement.
24. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the properties listed at serial no. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 should be excluded from the inter-se auction.
25. Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 3A contends that the properties listed at serial numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 16 should be excluded from the auction, as they were exempted vide order dated 10.05.1999. In contrast, Ld. counsel for all the parties except Defendant No. 3A argued that the order dated 10.05.1999 has been, effectively, set aside vide order dated 22.12.2010 in CM (M) No. 1683/2019 wherein Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva explicitly ruled that "in case any party has sold any asset contrary to the directions of the Court, no benefit shall be accorded to the said party and he/she would be liable in accordance with the law for breach of the order."
26. Before proceeding further, it is important to note that vide order dated 26.03.1980, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court directed that "status quo as on today in respect of the properties mentioned in the application will be maintained". This order was CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 28 of 40 made absolute vide order dated 08.08.1980. No party ever challenged the status quo order. Further, it is undisputed that all the properties in question, including those listed at serial numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, were sold after the 08.08.1980 "status quo"
order. It is also admitted that only properties at serial numbers 9 and 12 were sold with the permission of the court and further that there is no dispute regarding properties at serial nos. 2, 13, 14, 15 and 20. Therefore, it is evident that all other properties, including those listed at serial numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 16, were sold without the permission of the court. No party has presented any document indicating that permission was sought to sell these properties. Defendant No. 3A has relied upon the order dated 10.05.1999, which purportedly excluded properties Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 16 from the auction. In contrast, all other parties have relied upon the order dated 22.11.2020, passed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which states that no party can benefit from the sale made in contravention of the court's status quo order.
27. The order dated 10.05.1999 was passed by the Trial Court while the order dated 22.12.2020 was passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM (Main) petition. This Court is clearly bound by the order 22.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which explicitly states that "in case any party has sold any asset contrary to the directions of the Court, no benefit shall be accorded to the said party and he/she would be liable in accordance with the law for breach of the order."
CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 29 of 4028. The status quo order dated 26.03.1980 was clear and unambiguous. No party could have sold, gifted or otherwise parted with the possession of any property without the prior permission of the court. Nevertheless, all the parties involved-- plaintiffs and defendants, including Defendant No.3 (Now defendant No. 3A) -- have proceeded to sell various portions of the joint properties. These sales were conducted in blatant disregard of both, the order passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court as well as the provisions of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
29. Despite the disregard of the parties to the court's orders in selling the properties, the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 10.05.1999, excluded the properties mentioned at serial nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16 from the list of properties to be auctioned. The said order was challenged by way of an application but vide order dated 14.01.2010, it was held that the parties had accepted the exclusion of properties vide order dated 10.05.1999 and thus, no interference was required. Thereafter, all the parties except Defendant no. 3A filed the CM Main petition before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court wherein it was clearly held that "in case any party has sold any asset contrary to the directions of the Court, no benefit shall be accorded to the said party and he/she would be liable in accordance with the law for breach of the order."
30. This is a Court of Law and thus, this Court must 'uphold the law' under all circumstances. While it is acknowledged that the properties involved in this case may have CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 30 of 40 changed hands numerous times and that various third-party interests may have been created, it is essential to reaffirm that when law and equity are in conflict, the law must take precedence. Actions taken in violation of the law cannot be validated, even if they were done with the consent of all parties involved. All parties had ample opportunities to settle the matter, but they failed to do so. Had a settlement been reached, the parties' consent would have been considered. However, in issuing a judgment, this Court must adhere strictly to legal principles. No act or omission that disregards or contravenes the law can be ratified by this Court. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in its order dated 22.12.2020, has specifically stated that "in case any party has sold any asset contrary to the directions of the Court, no benefit shall be accorded to the said party and he/she would be liable in accordance with the law for breach of the order." In this case, all the parties have acted in violation of the status quo order dated 26.03.1980 issued by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Even if these actions were mutually agreed upon, such consent does not grant the parties the authority to ignore the Court's orders and proceed with the sale of the properties. Further, even if at some point vide order dated 10.05.1999, certain properties were ordered to be excluded but order dated 22.12.2020 makes it amply clear that the said sales cannot be given effect. Therefore, in view of the status quo order dated 26.03.1980, order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 22.12.2020 and while upholding the law of the land contained in section 52 of TPA, this Court is not inclined to ratify any sales made by the parties that are in clear contravention of the Court's orders. While it is acknowledged that CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 31 of 40 third parties may be adversely affected by this decision, it is an established position that the law protects only those who follow it. Third parties should have exercised due diligence before purchasing the properties and they cannot be granted rights to properties that were not lawfully permitted to be sold.
31. In light of the above considerations, this Court is of the view that the properties listed at serial numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16 cannot be excluded from the inter-se auction. Therefore, these properties shall also be included in the auction. It is, thus, concluded that properties mentioned at serial nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22 shall be put to auction.
Valuation and minimum reserve price:
32. The Government-approved Valuer submitted his reports dated 28.05.2024, 01.06.2024 and 05.06.2024 detailing the market value of the properties. The properties to be included in the inter-se auction are listed in the table below. The fifth column specifies the market value of each property. Considering the occupancy of the properties as well as the condition of the properties, the minimum reserve price is fixed for inter-se auction of all the properties which is listed in column No. 6 below:-
Table No. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6S.No. PROPERTY CIRCLE PRESENT PRESENT MINIMUM DESCRIPTI RATE MARKET STATUS RESERVE PRICE ON RATE STATUS
1. House No. Category E, Approximately Two adjacent Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
4058-59, 70,080/- x 3 2,50,000/- property each (Rs. 1 Crore) per Naya Bazaar, per Sq. Mtrs. (Commercial measuring around unit. Delhi. (commercial property) 195 Sq. Mtrs.
property) Consisting of
CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 32 of 40
ground, First,
Second and Rooms
at terrace. Mostly
occupied by
tenants.
3.(a) Property Colony Sl. No. The property The building Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
Nos. 1313-14 1073, located on DBG comprises of (Rs. 2 Crore)
Desh Bandhu Category-D, Road, Karol ground, Mezzanine
Gupta Marg, Circle Rate Bagh, New first, second and
Karol Bagh, 1,27,620/- Sq. Delhi and is a third floors having New Delhi- Mtrs. for Two side open total plot area is 90 110005 residential and commercial Sq. Yards Approx.
multiplying building. The The building is factor 3 for building is fully being used for commercial i.e. occupied. On the commercial-cum-
1,27,620/- x 3 basis of residential
enquiries from purposes.
property dealers
and keeping in
view size, shape,
location and
utility etc. the
present value is
between Rs.8
Crores to Rs. 10
Crores
3.(b) Property No. Colony Sl. No. The property The building Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
1315 Desh 1073, located on DBG comprises of (Rs. 1 Crore)
Bandhu Category-D, Road, Karol ground,
Gupta Marg, Circle Rate Bagh, New Mezzanine, first,
Karol Bagh, 1,27,620/- Sq. Delhi and is a second and third New Delhi- Mtrs. for Two side open floors having total 110005 residential and commercial plot area is 45 Sq.
multiplying building. The Yards. Approx. The factor 3 for building is fully building is being commercial i.e. occupied. On the used for 1,27,620/- x 3 basis of commercial-cum-
enquiries from residential
property dealers purposes.
and keeping in
view size,
shapes, location
and utility etc.
the present value
is between Rs. 4
Crore to Rs. 5
Crore.
3. (c) Property Colony Sl. The property This building Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
no.1316, No.1073, located on DBG comprises of (Rs. 1 Crore)
Desh Bandhu Category-D, Road, Karol Basement, ground,
Gupta Marg, Circle Rate Bagh, New first, second and
Karol Bagh, 1,27,620/- Sq. Delhi and is a third floors having New Delhi- Mtrs. for Two side open total plot area is 45 110005 residential and commercial Sq. Yards Approx.
multiplying building. The The building is factor 3 for building is fully being used for commercial i.e. occupied. On the commercial-cum-
1,27,620/- x 3 basis of residential
enquiries from purposes.
CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 33 of 40
property dealers
and keeping in
view size, shape,
location and
utility etc. the
present value is
between Rs. 4
Crore to Rs. 5
Crore.
4. House no. Colony Sl. No. The property The building Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
116, Sarai 2098, Category located on main comprises of (Rs. 2 Crores)
Rohilla, Old E road (Old ground, first,
Rohtak Road, Circle Rate Rohtak Road) second and third Delhi 70,080/- Sq. and is being floors and tower on Mtrs. For used for terrace and tower residential and commercial- on terrace having multiplying cum-residential total plot area factor 3 for purposes. On the around 380 Sq. commercial i.e. basis of inquiriesYards. The building 70,080/- x 3 from property is being used for dealers and commercial-cum-
keeping in view residential
size, shape, purposes.
location and
utility etc. the
present rate is
Rs. 3,00,000/-
per Sq. Yard.
5. House No. Category-A Total Value The building Rs. 5,00,00,000/-
5697, F-8 Circle Rate comes around to consist of Ground (Rs. 5 Crores)
Connaught 7,74,000/- x 2 Rupees 50 Cr. Floor, and
Place, New per Sq. Mtrs. Approximately Mezzanine Floor Delhi total area measuring around 249.68 Sq. Mtrs.
The building is fully occupied. The building has First Floor as well occupied by the inhabitants.
6. House no. Category-A, Total value Each building Rs. 5,00,00,000/-
5698-99, F9, Circle Rate comes around to consist of Ground (Rs. 5 Crores) per F10 7,74,000/- x 3 Rupees 50 cr. Floor, and unit Connaught per Sq. Mtrs. approximately. Mezzanine Floor Place, New for each unit i.e. total area Delhi F9 and F10 measuring around separately 249.68 Sq. Mtrs.
The building is fully. The building has First as well occupied by the inhabitants.
7. House no. Category-A, Total value The building Rs. 5,00,00,000/-
5700, F11, Circle rate comes around consist of Ground (Rs. 5 Crores)
Connaught 7,74,000/- x 3 for to Rupees 50 Floor, and
Place, New per Sq. Mtrs. cr. Mezzanine Floor
Delhi Approximately. total area
measuring around
CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 34 of 40
438 Sq. Mtrs.
Approximately .Th
e building has First
Floor as well
occupied by the
inhabitant.
8. House no. Category-A Total value The building Rs. 6,00,00,000/-
5701-2, F14, Circle Rate comes to around consist of Ground (Rs. 6 Crores) Connaught 7,74,000/- x 3 for to Rupees 60 Floor, and Place, New per Sq. Mtrs. Cr. Mezzanine Floor Delhi Approximately. total area measuring around 351 Sq. Mtrs.
Approximately.
The building is fully occupied. The building has First and Second Floor as well occupied by the inhabitant.
10. (a) House no. Colony Sl. No. The property The building Rs. 10,00,000/-
10592/XV, 1487, locates in back comprises of (Rs. 10 Lakhs) Nabi Karim, Category-E, side facing gali ground and first Delhi circle rate as such base on floors built upon 70,080/- Sq. enquiry from area measuring Mtrs. For property dealers 55.00 sq. yards residential and and keeping approx. and is multiplying size, shape and being used for factor 3 for location etc. the commercial cum commercial i.e. present market residential 70,080/- x 3 rate is around purposes.
Rs. 1,50,000/-
per Sq. yard.
10. (b) Property Colony Sl. No. Around Rs. 5 The size of Rs. 50,00,000/-
No.10605/X 1487 Category crore. The property is (Rs. 50 Lakhs) V Nabi E Circle Rate property facing approximately 40 x Karim, Delhi Rupees main road. 50 = 2000 Sq. ft. or 70,080/- per Based on 185.8 sq. mtrs. The sq. mtrs. enquiries from building consists of Applicable for property dealers, Ground floor, residential size, shape, second floors being units while location and used for 70,080/- x 3 utility etc. of commercial for commercial property.
properties.
10. (c) Property no. Colony Sl. No. Around Rs. 5 The size of Rs. 50,00,000/-
10606/XV 1487 Category crore. The property is (Rs. 50 Lakhs) Nabi Karim, E Circle Rate property facing approximately 40 x Delhi Rupees main road. 50 = 2000 sq. ft. or 70,080/- per Based on 185.8 Sq. mtrs. The sq. mtrs. enquiries from building consists of Applicable for property dealers, ground, first, residential size, shape, second floors being units while location and used for 70,080/- x 3 utility etc. of commercial.
for commercial property.
properties.
10. (d) Property no. Colony Sl. Around Rs. 5 The size of Rs. 50,00,000/-
CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 35 of 40
10607/XV No.1487, Crore. The property is (Rs. 50 Lakhs)
Nabi Karim, Category E, property facing approximately 40 x Delhi Circle Rate main road. 50 = 2000 sq. ft. or Rupees Based on 185.8 sq. mtrs. The 70,080/- per enquiries from building consists of sq. mtrs. property dealers, Ground, First, Applicable for size, shape, Second floors residential location and being used for units while utility etc. of commercial.
70,080/- x 3 property.
for commercial
properties.
11. House Category E Around The building Rs. 20,00,000/-
no.4338-39, Circle Rate 3,00,000/- consist of Ground (Rs. 20 Lakhs)
Pahari Rupees approximately Floor and Second
Dhiraj, 70,080/- per per Sq. yrds. Floor, the Ground
Delhi. Sq. Mtrs. Floor is used for
Applicable for commercial
residential purposed while
units while First and Second
70,080/- x 3 could not be visited
for commercial due to lock being
properties. put. The size of the
property being 85
Sq. Mtrs.
Approximately.
16. House no. Category E Around The property is Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
4315/16, Circle Rate 2,25,000/- built up to Ground, (Rs. 2 Crore)
Pahari Rupees approximately First, Second and
Dhiraj, Sadar 70,080/- per per Sq. mtrs Third Floor the
Bazaar, Delhi Sq. Mtrs. Area could not be
Applicable for measured due to
residential resistance put up
units while by the inhabitants.
70,080 x 3 for The building is
commercial fully occupied.
properties.
17. House Category E, Around The building is Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
no.4170, Gali Circle Rate 2,25,000/- built upto Ground, (Rs. 1 Crore)
Harian, Rupees approximately First, Second,
Pahari 70,080/- per per Sq. mtrs. Third and Fourth
Dhiraj, Delhi Sq. Mtrs. Floor. The area
Applicable for 193.23 Sq. Mtrs.
residential unit Approximately.
while 70,080/- The building
x 3 for Ground Floor is
commercial used for
properties. commercial
purposes.
18. House nos. Category E Around The building is Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
4171-72, Circle Rate 2,25,000/- built upto Ground, (Rs. 1 Crore)
Gali Harian, Rupees approximately First, Second,
Pahari 70,080/- per per Sq. mtrs. Third and Fourth
Dhiraj, Delhi Sq. Mtrs. Floor. The area is
Applicable for around 160 Sq.
residential Yrds.
units while Approximately.
70,080/- x 3 The building is
for commercial fully occupied.
CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 36 of 40
properties. While Ground
floor is being used
for commercial
purpose.
19. House Category E Around The building is Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
No.4357-59, Circle Rate 2,50,000/- built upto Ground, (Rs. 1 Crore)
Main Road, Rupees approximately First, Second, and
Pahari 70,080/- per per Sq. mtrs. Third Floor
Dhiraj, Sadar Sq. Mtrs. partially buildup.
Bazaar, Delhi Applicable for The area is around
residential 88 Sq. Yrds.
units while Approximately.
70,080/- x 3 The building is
for commercial fully occupied.
properties. While building is
being used for
commercial
purpose.
22. One Khoti Rupees Around Rupees As per the local Rs. 10,00,00,000/-
and land at 20,000/- per 50,000/- per sq. enquiry conducted (Rs. Ten Crores) Garhi and sq. mtrs. mtrs. by the under signed Kolagarh, (Garhi it transpired that village Nimbuwala one Khoti on land Nimbuwala, And Kolagarh measuring around Dehradun, 36,000/- per 4 bigha and land Uttarakhan, sq. mtrs.) comprising of 45 situated at bigha Kolagarh with in kh. approximately at No. 901, 906, presently now 907, 909 at known as Shanti Gharhi and Vihar developed Khasra Nos. with metallic roads 125ka, and the 125kha,125G construction is a, 126, 127, going on for 128Ka and constructing new 128Kha at Kothies. And Kolagarh, overhead watertank Dehradun has been Uttrakhand. constructed by local civic body. In A) Kothi and Gharhi Nimbuwala land at the land comprises Kolagarh of approximately Dehradun 10 bighas fully B) Ghari built up with Nimbuwala khoties.
Dehradun
33. It is further clarified that, in accordance with the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, no benefit shall accrue to any party that has previously sold a property under litigation. As noted CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 37 of 40 earlier, all parties have sold portions of the properties involved in this case. Consequently, any party that has sold a particular property will not receive any proceeds from the auction of that particular property. Instead, the sale proceeds will be distributed among the remaining shareholders according to the percentages declared by the preliminary decree. For example, if Party A has sold Property X, then Party A will not be entitled to any proceeds from the auction of Property X. Instead, the proceeds will be allocated among the co-owners based on their respective shares as determined by the preliminary decree.
Final order:
34. It is ordered that the properties mentioned in Table no. 3 shall be auctioned as per Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893. The proceeds from the sale of the properties shall be divided among the parties as per their shares mentioned in Table no. 1. Further, the shares of the deceased parties will be inherited by their respective legal heirs, with each lineal heir receiving one unit of the share. If all the properties are not sold in the inter-se auction, then the remaining properties shall be sold in a public auction and the proceeds will be divided as per the shares mentioned in Table no. 1. A party that has sold a particular property in contravention of the status quo order, will not receive any proceeds from the auction of that particular property. Instead, the sale proceeds will be distributed among the remaining shareholders according to the percentages declared by the preliminary decree.
Applications dated 27.10.2020, 05.04.2022, 02.12.2023 and CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 38 of 40 04.02.2023 are accordingly, disposed off.
35. Furthermore, an application dated 09.03.2021 has been filed on behalf of all parties except Defendant No. 3A, seeking a compromise of the matter. However, since the matter has now been decided on its merits, the application dated 09.03.2021 is deemed infructuous and is therefore dismissed.
36. Since, nothing else remains in the matter, the case stands disposed off.
RELIEF:
(A) The suit properties mentioned in Table no. 3 shall be sold out in an inter-se auction and the sale proceeds from the auction, after deducting necessary expenses, shall be distributed to the parties, as per their respective shares mentioned in the preliminary decree dated 26.03.1980 which are specified in Table no. 1 above.
Further, the shares of the deceased parties will be inherited by their respective legal heirs, with each lineal heir receiving one unit of the share.
(B) If any property is not sold in the inter-se auction, then it shall be put to public auction within 15 days from the date of final result of inter-se auction and the sale proceeds shall be divided in accordance with the percentage share ascertained in the preliminary decree and mentioned in Table no. 1 above.
(C) The Final decree in this case is required to be engrossed upon non-judicial papers, as an order of sale or an order under section 3 of the Partition Act in a partition suit passed under section 8 of the Partition Act is an instrument of Partition under section 2(15) of CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 39 of 40 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 within 15 days from the date of this judgment.
(D) If one party or more than one party fails to deposit the non- judicial stamp papers of their respective shares, then the other party(s) 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(s) shall be recoverable as a cost and the auction amount of the defaulting party(s) shall be reduced accordingly against the said cost and shall be paid to the party who had borne the expenses of defaulting party.
(E) The proceedings for sale will take place in execution proceedings and consequently, the net sale proceeds will be distributed between the parties. Any issue regarding the sale of the properties shall be dealt with in the execution proceedings.
The Final Decree will be drawn upon only on the submission of the requisite Stamp papers. No order as to costs.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly in terms of this judgment.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL ASRANI Announced in the open Court on ASRANI Date:
2024.08.12 12th day of August, 2024. 17:11:52 +0530 (Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI PO, MACT-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.CS DJ No. 17139/16 Ram Dulari vs. Jai Narain Prasad & Ors. Page 40 of 40