Delhi District Court
Sagiran W/O. Late Sh. Peeru vs Reshami W/O. Late Peeru on 23 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (SOUTH EAST)
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS - 8934 /2016
1. Sagiran W/o. Late Sh. Peeru
R/o. H. No. B20/3, 2nd Floor
Peer Wali Gali Village - Kotla
Mayur Vihar PhaseI, New Delhi - 110091
2. Imran Khan S/o. Late Sh. Peeru
R/o. H. No. B20/3, 2nd Floor
Peer Wali Gali Village - Kotla
Mayur Vihar, Phase1, New Delhi - 110091.
3. Seema W/o. Feroz Khan & D/o. Late Sh. Peeru
R/o. H. No. 219, Gali no.3,
Peer Wali Gali Village - Kotla
Mayur Vihar, Phase1, New Delhi - 110091.
4. Shama D/o. Late Sh. Peeru
R/o. H. No. B20/3, 2nd Floor
Peer Wali Gali Village - Kotla
Mayur Vihar, Phase1, New Delhi - 110091.
......Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Reshami W/o. Late Peeru
2. Meena D/o. Late Peeru
3. Shamima D/o. Late Peeru
4. Ferdosh D/o. Late Peeru
CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 1 of 21
5. Ikram S/o. Late Peeru
Both R/o. H. No. 67/116,
Village Aali, Badarpur
New Delhi - 110044.
......Defendants
Date of Institution of suit : 23.09.2015
Date of Reserving of judgment : 02.03.2022
Date of Judgment : 23.03.2022
JUDGMENT
1 By virtue of this judgment, the present suit for declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction filed by 1. Sagiran, 2. Imran Khan, 3. Seema and 4. Shama (hereinafter called plaintiffs) against
1. Reshmi, 2. Meena, 3. Shamima, 4. Ferdosh and 5. Ikram (hereinafter called defendants ) with respect to property i.e. plot measuring 100 square yards in portion C of the property no.1 situated in Khasra no. 358 in Old Abadi of Lal Dora, revenue estate of village Aali, New Delhi (hereinafter called suit property), is being disposed of.
Plaintiff's case 2 Brief facts relevant to the disposal of the suit are summarized as under: 2.1 The plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of Late Sh. Peeru who expired on 03.08.2005 leaving behind 2 wives and CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 2 of 21 7 children. It is averred that a family settlement took place between Late Sh. Peeru and his brothers on 17.06.2005 whereby they distributed 4 properties amongst themselves and out of 4 properties, Portion C (80 sq. yds, house and 100 sq. yds. Plot) in property no.1, Portion B (80 square yards) in property no.1 and one third share in property no.4 the agricultural land came into the share of Late Sh. Peeru. It is accordingly averred that half of the shares in the properties owned by Late Sh. Peeru fell in the respective shares of plaintiffs and defendants. It is further averred that as per the mutual understanding between the plaintiffs and defendants after death of Sh. Peeru, 80 sq. yds. in Portion 'C' of the property no.1 fell in share of defendant and 80 sq. yds. of plots in portion 'B' in property no.2 came into the shares of plaintiffs and another vacant plot measuring 100 sq. yds of portion 'C' was to be equally divided between the plaintiff and defendants. It is further averred that plaintiffs sold 80 sq. yds of plot of the portion B in property no.2 in March 2014 which was witnessed by defendant no.5. It is further averred that the plot measuring 100 sq. yds. in portion C of property no.1 is a vacant plot and is situated in Khasra no. 358 situated in Old abadi of Lal Dora (190809), revenue estate of Village Aali, New Delhi and stands inthe joint names of plaintiffs and defendants being legal heirs of Late Sh. Peeru and plaintiffs approached defendants several times since March 2014 to divide the property in 2 equal portions. It is further averred that defendants started constructing the suit property without any portion as seen by him on CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 3 of 21 19.09.2015 and refused to stop the construction. The matter was reported to police by plaintiff on 20.09.2015 but no action was taken.
2.2 It is further averred that defendants have no right or title to construct the suit property as the property is undivided and joint property of the parties and that the plaintiffs are in the possession of the suit property alongwith the defendants. Accordingly, it is prayed that the preliminary decree be passed declaring the plaintiffs as owners of their half portion of the suit property and also to pass a decree of partition of the suit property by netes and bounds between the plaintiffs and defendants as per their respective share and further defendants and plaintiffs be put in possession of their respective shares in the suit property. Further, it is prayed that a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from carrying out any construction and creating third party interest in the suit property be also passed.
Defendant's Version 3 Written statement was filed by the defendants denying the averments of the plaint.
3.1 It is submitted that suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs deliberately concealed the factum of Will executed by Late Sh. Peeru with respect to the division of his properties amongst his all legal heirs ie. Plaintiffs and the defendants herein. As the suit property fell in the share of defendant no.5 thus he is absolute CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 4 of 21 and exclusive owner of the suit property. It is submitted that plaintiffs have deliberately concealed the fact regarding the Will dated 17.06.2005, which was executed on the same day when the family settlement was entered into between Late Peeru and his brothers wherein two properties of 80 sq. yds. each and one property of 100 sq. yds fell into the share of Late Sh. Peeru. It is stated that Late Sh. Peeru partitioned his properties vide Will dated 17.06.2005 as in (I) Built up property bearing no. 67/116 (old No.13), admeasuring 80 Sq. yards, fell into the share of plaintiff no.1 and 2. (II) Built up property behind Bethak admeasuring 80 Sq. yds. And a Plot admeasuring 100 Sq. Yds. Fell into the share of defendant no.5 3.2 It is accordingly submitted that the plaintiffs can neither jointly nor individually can claim share in the suit property as per the stipulation made in the Will dated 17.06.2005. It is submitted that any mutual understanding was never entered into the parties. The parties have been in use and occupation of their respective shares as already partitioned by deceased Peeru vide Will dated 17.06.2005. It is further substantiated from the fact that the plaintiffs never made any claim in the suit property since the death of deceased Peeru in the year 2005 and now the suit has been filed only in order to grab the suit property which has devolved upon the defendants particularly upon defendant no.5 by virtue of Will dated 17.06.2005. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to sell their part of property but they cannot CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 5 of 21 claim any share in the plot admeasuring 100 sq. yds. It is reiterated that the suit property devolved upon the defendants by virtue of Will dated 17.06.2005, thus the plaintiffs have no concern, right, title, interest or share, whatsoever, in the suit property.
Replication 4 No replication / rejoinder to the written statement of defendants has been filed by the plaintiff.
Issues 5 After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 30.08.2018:
1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for?
OPP.
2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree of partition as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for possession as prayed for ? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands? OPD.
6. Whether Late Sh. Peeru had bequeathed the suit property in CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 6 of 21 favour of defendant no.5 by virtue of Will dated 17.06.2005? OPD.
7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court Fees? OPD.
8. Relief.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES 6 PW1 Ms. Sagiran tendered her evidence by way of Affidavit Ex. PW1/X affirming the contents and averments made in the plaint. She also relied upon following documents :
S. No. Ex. / Mark Description of document
1 Ex. PW1/A Copy of Certificate of legal heirs of
Late Peeru Khan (OSR)
2 Ex. PW1/B Copy of Death certificate (OSR)
3 Ex. PW1/C Copy of Ration card (OSR)
4 Ex. PW1/D Copy of Voter ID (OSR)
5 Ex. PW1/E Copy of Family settlement deed
(OSR)
6 Mark A Copy of FIRD
(mentioned as
Ex. PW1/F in
evidentiary
affidavit)
7 Ex. PW1/G Original Site plan for all properties
(common 1 to 4)
8 Ex. PW1/H Original Site plan (khasra no.358 100
sq.yds)
9 Ex. PW1/I Original 2 Photographs dated
(colly) 20.09.2015
CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 7 of 21
10 Ex. PW1/J Original Suit alongwith affidavit
6.1 In crossexamination, PW1 Ms. Sagiran submitted that she
was unable to tell the exact address of the suit property however stated that the same is in village Aali and dimension is about 100 square yards. She further submitted that out of total properties of her husband, defendant no.5 had 180 sq. yds and she was having 80 square yards. She further submitted that there is an agricultural land which belonged to her husband which was not partitioned and that any partition suit has not been filed by her regarding that. She said that she was not aware about any mutual understanding having being done between the parties. She also stated that she sold her share of 80 square yards about five years ago for a total sale consideration of Rs. 74 lakhs and that she can produce the sale documents. She admitted that the suit property has always been in use and in possession of defendant no.5. She declined the suggestion that her husband ever executed a Will dated 17th June 2005. She declined the suggestion that the built up property 80 square yards fell into her share and that of her son Imran and further denied that as per will dated 17.06.2005, built up property behind Bethak admeasuring 80 sq. yds. and a plot admeasuring 100 sq. yds. came to the share of defendant no.5. She stated that her husband passed away on 03.08.2005 and she asked for the partition of the suit property after selling her share in the property in the year 2014. She declined the suggestion that defendant no.5 is absolute and lawful owner of CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 8 of 21 the suit property by virtue of will dated 17.06.2005.
6.2 PW 2 Imran Khan and PW 3 tendered their respective affidavits in examination in chief but the opportunity of cross examination was not given to counsel for defendant with respect to PW 2 and PW 3 upon submission made by counsel for plaintiff that he does not want to lead any further evidence as noted in the order dated 26.09.2019. Their testimony thus cannot be considered and read. Matter was then listed for defendant evidence.
Defendant Evidence 7 Even after granting numerous opportunities to lead defendant evidence, no evidentiary affidavit was filed on behalf of defendants. Defendant Evidence was accordingly closed vide order dated 05.03.2020. Matter was then listed for final arguments.
Final Arguments 8 Final arguments were advanced by counsel for plaintiff while opportunity was granted to counsel for defendant to advance arguments and also to file written submissions. Counsel for defendants stopped appearing before the Court. Neither did he advance final arguments nor filed any written submissions. Certain clarifications were sought from counsel for plaintiff. He clarified that plaintiff is Muslim by religion and governed by Muslim Law of Succession. He also submitted that this factum was inadvertently not mentioned in the petition or even in the affidavit. Statement of plaintiff no.1 to this effect was also recorded on 07.12.2021. As this was a factual CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 9 of 21 premise governing the relationship of plaintiffs and defendants interse, without any prejudice to any of the parties, something which can neither be denied nor ignored, same is taken into consideration for adjudicating of dispute at hand.
Decision & Reasoning 9 Case file perused in the light of arguments advanced. Respective issues are being taken up for adjudication as follows :
Issue no. 5
5. Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands? OPD.
10 Onus to prove this issue was cast upon defendants. No evidence has been led on behalf of defendants in this case. There is no attempt on part of defendants to show as to how they proclaimed that the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands. The only averment as part of written statement is about Late Sh. Peeru having executed a Will dated 17.06.2005 which is well within the knowledge of plaintiff as per which the suit property fell into share of defendant no.5. Nothing has been placed on record to show that execution of Will was in active knowledge of plaintiffs or that share in the other properties of Peeru was bifurcated on the lines of the said Will in question. No active evidence has been led on behalf of defendant in support of the bald contentions made in the Written Statement. The issue accordingly stands decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiffs.
CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 10 of 21 Issue no. 6
6. Whether Late Sh. Peeru had bequeathed the suit property in favour of defendant no.5 by virtue of Will dated 17.06.2005? OPD.
11 Onus to prove this issued was put upon defendants. Defendants have contended as part of the Written Statement that Late Sh. Peeru had executed a Will dated 17.06.2005 with respect to division of his properties amongst all his legal heirs, which are plaintiffs as well as defendants in this matter As per the said Will, the suit property fell into share of defendant no.5 and thus, he became the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the said property. It is also contended that the plaintiffs were well aware of the said Will and in fact, original of the said will is in their possession.
11.1 Examining the legal tenability of this contention, the applicability of Testamentary Succession has been provided in Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It is noted that Section 58 of Indian Succession Act mandates that the provisions of this part shall not apply to testamentary successions to the property of any Muhammadan. Section 57 and Section 58 of Indian Succession Act are reproduced hereunder for the purpose of easy reference :
57. Application of certain provisions of Part to a class of Wills made by Hindus, etc. - The provisions of this part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 11 of 21 therein, apply -
(a) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieutenant-governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and
(b) to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as reLates to immoveable property situate within those territories or limits; and
(c) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and
(b) :] Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such or codicil.
58. General application of Part - (1) The provisions of this Part shall not apply to testamentary succession to the property of any Muhammadan nor, save as provided by Section 57, to testamentary succession to the property of any Hindu, buddhist, Sikh or Jaina; nor shall they apply to any Will made before the first day of January, 1866.
11.2 No evidence has been led on behalf of defendants to prove this issue. It was during the crossexamination of plaintiff as PW 1 that suggestions were put up with respect to execution of Will dated 17.06.2005. PW1 denied the suggestion that her husband had executed a Will dated 17.06.2005 and the original of the said Will was in her possession or in the possession of her children.
CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 12 of 21 She also denied the suggestion that she and her children were aware of the Will dated 17.06.2005 since its execution by her husband. She also denied that built up property bearing no. 67/116 (old no.13) admeasuring 80 sq. yds. fell into the her share and that of her son Imran and that as per the said Will itself, built up property behind Bethak admeasuring 80 sq. yds. and a plot admeasuring 100 sq. yds. came to the share of defendant no.5. She also denied the suggestion that defendant no.5 was absolutely and lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of Will dated 17.06.2005 and that she and her children turned dishonest after selling their share and filed this suit only to grab the suit property.
12 No evidence has been led on behalf of defendants to prove the execution of Will dated 17.06.2005. Only photocopy of the alleged Will has been filed. There is no request made by any of the defendants to consider photocopy as admissible in secondary evidence as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Defendants have not made any attempt to even prove that original of the said Will is in possession of plaintiff as contended in the Written Statement. Any of the attesting witness has not been produced in the witness box. There is nothing to show that Late Sh. Peeru was in sound physical and mental state and was capable of giving a clear judgment and also to understand the consequences of his decision. There is also nothing to show that the said writing was his last testament. No evidence has been led to show that the document CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 13 of 21 which is called a Will, duly bears the signatures of Late Sh. Peeru and / or was duly executed in terms of relevant provisions of Indian Succession Act or that Section 58 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 do not apply to the said Will at hand.
13 Will dated 17.06.2005 cannot be taken to be proved by any stretch of imagination, in view of the observation made in the preceding paragraphs. Defendants have miserably failed to prove that the suit property in question at any time was bequeathed to Late Peeru in favour of defendant no.5 by virtue of Will dated 17.06.2005. The issue is accordingly proved against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 7
7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court Fees? OPD.
14 The onus to prove this issue is upon defendants. There is only a bald averment in the Written Statement that the suit has not been properly valued. There is nothing to substantiate that the valuation done by the plaintiff is incorrect or at variance with what is required in law. This issue is also decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 1,2,3 and 4 15 These issues are taken up altogether being interconnected.
CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 14 of 21 The onus to prove these issues is upon the plaintiffs.
1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree of partition as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for possession as prayed for ? OPP.
15.1 The case of the plaintiffs is that Late Sh. Peeru expired on 03.08.2005 leaving behind his wives and their respective children who are plaintiffs and defendants in the matter. Plaintiff no.1 is wife of Late Sh. Peeru and plaintiff no.2,3 and 4 are her children with Late Sh. Peeru whereas defendant no.1 is another wife of Late Sh. Peeru and defendants no. 2,3,4 and 5 are all children of defendant no.1 with Late Sh. Peeru. This aspect of Late Sh. Peeru having two wives or plaintiff no. 2 to 4 and defendants 2 to 5 as his children, is not disputed amongst the parties. Surviving Members / Legal Heir Certificate has been proven by PW1 in her testimony as Ex. PW1/A 15.2 It is not in dispute that Late Sh. Peeru entered into a family settlement on 17.06.2005 with his respective brothers vide which the joint family properties were distributed amongst Late Sh. Peeru and his brothers. It is also not in dispute that 80 sq. yds, house and 100 sq. yds. plot in property no.1, identified as portion CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 15 of 21 'C'; 80 sq. yds. in property no.2, identified as portion 'B' and 1/3rd share in property no.4 which is the agricultural land fell into the share of Late Sh. Peeru. This copy of family settlement has been placed on record as Ex. PW1/E. The arrangement has been notified as part of the site plan, placed on record as Ex. PW1/G for the purpose of easy identification. There is also no dispute about death of Late Sh. Peeru on 03.08.2005. Death certificate of Late Sh. Peeru has been filed as Ex. PW1/B. PW1 Smt. Sagiran affirmed in her testimony that Late Sh. Peeru expired intestate. The contention on behalf of defendants that Late Sh. Peeru had executed a Will dated 17.06.2005 has already been rejected. Thus, defendants have not been able to put up any formidable opposition to rather presume otherwise. It is accordingly accepted that Late Sh. Peeru had died intestate as there is no counter argument to put the said position in doubt.
15.3 There were three properties in the pool which fell into share of Late Sh. Peeru as per admitted family settlement. With respect to two built up properties of 80 sq, yds., no dispute has arisen between plaintiff and defendants as respectively identified in Site Plan Ex. PW1/G. The only dispute between the parties is with respect to 100 sq. yds. plot in property no.1, identified as portion 'C' in the site plan Ex. PW1/G which is also separately shown for easy identification and recognition of property in Site Plan Ex. PW1/H. No dispute has been raised even by defendants with respect to possession of other two 80 sq. yds. portions of built up CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 16 of 21 property which respectively fell into the share of plaintiffs and defendants. It is the claim of defendants that this 100 sq. yds. plot was bequeathed in favour of defendant no. 5 by Late Sh. Peeru. There is nothing to show that Late Sh. Peeru was capable of disposition of property by way of Will. The contention of Late Sh. Peeru having executed a Will or testament has already been rejected as part of discussion in another issue, being legally incapacitated in terms of Section 57 and 58 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, Determination of shares of plaintiffs and defendant would thus be governed by intestate succession rules applicable to Mohammadans.
15.4 Chapter II of Indian Succession Act lays down the rules in case of intestate succession other than Parsis. Governing provisions of Section 32 and 33 of Indian Succession Act have been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
32. Devolution of such property - The property of an intestate devolves upon the wife or husband, or upon those who are of the kindred of the deceased, in the order and according to the rules hereinafter contained in this chapter.
33. Where intestate has left widow and lineal descendants, or widow and kindred only, or widow and no kindred - Where the intestate has left a widow
(a) If he has also left any lineal descendants, CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 17 of 21 onethirds of his property shall belong to his widow, and the remaining twothirds shall go to his lineal descendants, according to the rules hereinafter contained.
(b) [save as provided by section 33A], if he has left no lineal descendant, but has left persons who are of kindered to him, one half of his property shall belong to his widow, and the other half shall go to those who are kindred to him, in the order and according to the rules hereinafter contained;
(c) if he has left none who are of kindred to him, the woile of his property shall belong to his widow.
15.5 In view of the aforesaid discussion, 1/3rd of the 100 sq. yds. property as per Section 33 (a) of Indian Succession Act would go to the two widows of Late Sh. Peeru that is to Sagiran (plaintiff no.1) and to Reshami (defendant no.1). Further, the remaining 2/3rd of the 100 sq. yds. property shall go to the lineal descendants that is plaintiffs nos. 2 to 4 and defendants no. 2 to 5 as per Rules of Distribution. As there are surviving sons and daughters as lineal descendants of Late Sh. Peeru, distribution amongst them would be governed by Section 36 and Section 37 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 which are reproduced as under :
36. Rules of distribution - The rules for the distribution of the intestate's property (after deducting the widow's share, if he has left a widow) among his lineal descendants shall be those contained in Sections 37 to 40.
37. Where intestate has left child or children only - Where the intestate has left surviving him CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 18 of 21 a child or children, but no more remote lineal descendant through a deceased child, the property shall belong to his surviving child, if there is only one, or shall be equally divided among all his surviving children.
15.6 Thus after deducting 1/3rd composite share for widows of Late Sh. Peeru, remaining 2/3 shall be distributed equally amongst his surviving children who are plaintiff no. 2 to 4 and defendants no. 2 to 5.
15.7 In the light of above made discussion, before proceeding to pass a preliminary decree of partition, shares of each of the surviving legal heirs are recognized and declared hereunder :
S. No. Name Relationship Share
1. Sagiran Wife (first) 1/3 / ½ = 1/6
2. Imran Khan Son 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
3. Seema Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
4. Shama Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
5. Reshami Wife (second) 1/3 / ½ = 1/6
6. Meena Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
7. Shamima Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
8. Ferdosh Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
9. Ikram Son 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
15.8 Plaintiffs have also sought decree of permanent injunction
restraining defendants from carrying out any construction and creating third party interest in the suit property by way of CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 19 of 21 mortgage /sale. All the parties including the plaintiffs and defendants are restrained from carrying out any construction and creating third party interest in the suit property till final partition by metes and bounds is carried out and all the parties are put in possession of their respective shares. Issue no. 1 and 3 are decided accordingly in favour of plaintiffs and defendants. Since no physical partition by metes and bounds have taken place, issue no. 2 and 4 with respect to possession and final decree of partition are left open.
Relief 16 In view of the adjudication of the issues as discussed above, preliminary decree of partition is passed as per the tabulation given hereunder with respect to the subject property i.e. plot measuring 100 square yards in portion C of the property no.1 situated in Khasra no. 358 in Old Abadi of Lal Dora, revenue estate of village Aali, New Delhi :
S. No. Name Relationship Share
1. Sagiran Wife (first) 1/3 / ½ = 1/6
2. Imran Khan Son 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
3. Seema Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
4. Shama Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
5. Reshami Wife (second) 1/3 / ½ = 1/6
6. Meena Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
7. Shamima Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 20 of 21
8. Ferdosh Daughter 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
9. Ikram Son 2/3 * 1/7 = 2/21
Decree of permanent injunction is also passed restraining all the parties from construction upon the suit property or from alienating, selling, mortgaging or creating any third party interest thereupon. Three months time is granted for mutual settlement amongst plaintiffs and defendants with respect to defacto final partition of suit property by metes and bounds in terms of the shares determined as mentioned above. In case, same is not effected, parties may approach the Court for appointment of Local Commissioner to devolve mechanism to assess the physical factual viability of partition or arrangement for mode of partition through metes and bounds, as practicable.
17 Preliminary Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed SHELLY by SHELLY
ARORA
ARORA Date: 2022.03.25
04:14:42 +0530
Announced in the open (SHELLY ARORA)
Court on 23.03.2022 Additional District Judge 01(SE),
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS - 8934 /2016 Sagiran & Ors. Vs. Reshami pg. 21 of 21