Delhi District Court
Amrit Pal Kaur vs Gurshran Kaur on 19 October, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE - 07, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO. :- 958/2018
CNR NO. DLWT010075882018
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SHRI AMRIT PAL KAUR
W/o Sh. Deveinder Jit Singh,
R/o Plot No.10, Tarapuri, Vishnu Nagar,
Jagadhari Work Shop, District Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.SH. HARVINDER SINGH W/o Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh, R/o 1612/5, Sekhawala Thaneshwar City, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.
2. SH. JASVINDER SINGH S/o Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh, R/o H.No. 330, Sector-2, Hudda, Kurukshetra, Haryana. .... Defendants SUIT FOR THE PARTITION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.
Date of institution of the Suit : 23.08.2018
Date of Judgment was reserved : 27.07.2024
Date of Judgment : 19.10.2024
Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur Vs. Sh. Harvinder Singh and Others Page 1 of 9
2
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking decree of partition and permanent injunction.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT The necessary facts for the adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under :
2.1. The plaintiff is the sister of defendant no.2 and 3 and daughter of defendant no.1 and they are the co-owners of property bearing no. WZ-H-70, measuring area 100 sq. yds situated at Sant Nagar Extension, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, which was the self acquired property of Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh, her father, which was purchased by him during his lifetime in the year 1988. Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh died intestate on 29.11.1995 leaving behind the following legal heirs :
a. Smt. Gurshran Kaur, wife;
b. Sh. Harvinder Singh, son;
c. Sh. Jasvinder Singh, son;
d. Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur, daughter; and
e. Sh. Parvinder Singh, son.
Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur Vs. Sh. Harvinder Singh and Others Page 2 of 9
3
2.2. Sh. Parvinder Singh also expired on 17.01.2015 without leaving behind any other legal heir, besides the parties to the present suit. 2.3. The original ownership documents of the suit property are in the possession of the plaintiff and after the death of Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh, all the defendants are trying to grab the property without giving any share to the plaintiff saying that she has no share in the property and threatening her to sell the suit property to third party by forging the documents. The original death certificate of Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh is in the possession of defendants.
2.4. When the plaintiff visited the plot / suit property, she found that some kind of construction was going on after demolishing the old structure raised by her deceased father and she was told by someone that the property had already been disposed of by the defendants but did not disclose the name and address of the purchaser. After making enquiry from the defendants, she realized that forged documents has been prepared by the defendants, on the basis of which they are intending to sell the suit property to some other persons and flatly refused to give any share to her for which she is entitled, being one of the Legal Heir of Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh who died intestate. Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur Vs. Sh. Harvinder Singh and Others Page 3 of 9 4 2.5. The plaintiff is being threatened by the defendants that the suit property would be sold to some anti social elements by preparing forged and fabricated documents and the possession of the same would also be given to the purchaser if she insists for partition.
2.6. The suit property as shown in the site plan is still undivided and a joint property, wherein she has proportionate share alongwith defendants and the defendants do not have any exclusive right to construct, sell, disposed of or part with the possession of the suit property, without obtaining prior consent of plaintiff, as she is in constructive possession of the same alongwith the defendants.
3. Summons were issued for the service of defendants on 23.08.2018 and defendant no.1 and 3 put their appearance, however, written statement was not filed on their behalf within stipulated period. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.02.2020, all the defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
4. EX-PARTE PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
4.1. In support of her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her evidence affidavit as Ex.PW-1/1 in her examination-in-chief. Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur Vs. Sh. Harvinder Singh and Others Page 4 of 9 5 4.2. In her evidence, the plaintiff has relied upon the following documents:
A. Copy of GPA as Ex.PW-1/A;
B. Copy of agreement as Ex.PW-1/B;
C. Copy of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/C; and
D. Copy of receipt dated 26.05.1988 as Ex.PW-1/D;
(All the documents seen and returned).
5. Thereafter, no other witness was examined by the plaintiff, hence, ex-
parte plaintiff evidence was closed.
6. In a nutshell, the present suit for partition has been filed by the plaintiff / Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur seeking her share into the suit property i.e. WZ-H-70, admeasuring 100 sq.yds, situated at Sant Nagar Extension, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, which was originally owned by her father / Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh.
7. The plaintiff herself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that the suit property was the self acquired property of her father / Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh who expired on 29.11.1995 intestate leaving behind the parties to the suit as his only surviving legal heirs. PW-1 has further deposed that one of her brother and shareholder in the suit property, Late Sh. Parminder Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur Vs. Sh. Harvinder Singh and Others Page 5 of 9 6 Singh also expired on 17.01.2015 without leaving any legal heir besides the parties to the suit, as he was a bachelor at the time of his death.
8. It is a matter of record that during the pendency of trial, Smt. Gurshran Kaur, original defendant no.1, wife of Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh also expired and only three shareholders including the plaintiff and two defendants are left as parties in the present suit.
9. Defendant no.1, Sh. Harvinder Singh and defendant no.2, Sh. Jasvinder Singh are the real brothers of plaintiff, Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur.
10. Firstly, it is a well settled position of law that there is no limitation period prescribed under The Limitation Act, 1963 for seeking the relief of partition, unless a case for ouster is made out and there is no compulsion on the heirs of a common predecessor to seek partition. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Parkash, (1995) 4 SCC 496 and Swatantra Suneja Vs. Anil Kumar and Others, CS(OS) 352/2016, Hon'ble Delhi High Court. So, in view thereof, the present suit for partition is not time barred as per the provisions of The Limitation Act, 1963. Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur Vs. Sh. Harvinder Singh and Others Page 6 of 9 7
11. Secondly, the record reveals that the suit property is situated at Sant Nagar Extension, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, which is also within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
12. Thirdly, the plaintiff has valued the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.30,00,000/-, so this Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit.
13. Fourthly, the plaintiff has taken the plea that all the surviving legal heirs of Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh, including all his siblings are on record. The record further reveals that the mother of the plaintiff expired during the pendency of the present suit. So, it is explicit from the record that all the necessary parties for the suit of partition have been impleaded in the present suit.
14. In the present case, PW-1 Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur has specifically pleaded that being the daughter of Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh, she has an equal share into the suit property alongwith her brothers. Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur Vs. Sh. Harvinder Singh and Others Page 7 of 9 8
15. Section 8 of The Hindu Succession Act categorically provides that the property of a Hindu male dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the schedule annexed therein.
16. The perusal of the aforesaid schedule reveals that the daughter of a male deceased is part of the category of relatives mentioned in Class I of the schedule besides the sons.
17. Section 9 and 10 of The Hindu Succession Act provides that the Class I heirs of a Hindu male dying intestate shall succeed the property simultaneously and the surviving sons, daughters and widow of the deceased, shall each take one share from the property.
18. In view of the aforesaid position of law, it is clear that after the demise of Smt. Gurshran Kaur, widow of Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh and Sh. Parvinder Singh, son of Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh, the remaining three Class I legal heirs i.e. plaintiff, Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur and defendant no.1, Sh. Harvinder Singh and defendant no.2, Sh. Jasvinder Singh have one third share each into the suit property, which was originally owned by their father, Late Sh. Sukh Dayal Singh.
Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur Vs. Sh. Harvinder Singh and Others Page 8 of 9 9
19. In light of the factual matrix of the present case and the settled position of law, plaintiff, Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur, defendant no.1, Sh. Harvinder Singh and defendant no.2, Sh. Jasvinder Singh are held entitled to one third share each into the suit property i.e. property bearing no. WZ-H-70, admeasuring 100 sq.yds, situated at Sant Nagar Extension, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. Accordingly, the claim of the plaintiff stands decreed.
20. Preliminary decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Digitally signed
MANOJ by MANOJ KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Announced in the Open Court SHARMA Date: 2024.10.19 15:52:22 +0530 on 19th October, 2024.
(MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA) DJ-07 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Smt. Amrit Pal Kaur Vs. Sh. Harvinder Singh and Others Page 9 of 9