Delhi District Court
Smt. Jasbir Kaur vs Suit No.282/10 Page : 1/26 on 1 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGECUMRENT CONTROLLER (NORTH EAST DISTRICT) :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. 282 OF 2010
UNIQUE I.D. NO.02402C0012101996)
1. SMT. JASBIR KAUR
W/o Sh. Gyan Singh,
R/o B10, Old Gobindpura,
Parwana Road, Gali No.23,
Delhi110051.
2. SMT. MANMOHAN KAUR
W/o Sh. Balvinder Singh,
R/o WZ478, Sant Garh,
Gali No.31, Delhi81.
3. SMT. KAMALJEET KAUR
W/o Sh. Manjit Singh,
R/o 38, Indra Park,
Near Chander Nagar,
Gali No.15, Delhi110051.
............ PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
Suit No.282/10 Page : 1/26
1. SH. PRITAM SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Didar Singh,
R/o New No. X1207, Old No.X128/47A,
Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi110051.
2. SH. JAGDISH SINGH,
S/o Late Sh. Didar Singh,
R/o New No. X1207, Old No.X128/47A,
Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi110051.
...........DEFENDANTS
Date of institution : 19.11.1996
Order reserved on : 31.03.2011
Date of Decision : 01.04.2011
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERPETUAL INJUNCTION,
PARTITION AND POSSESSION
J U D G M E N T :
1. The present case has been remanded back by Ld. Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 1.10.2010 after setting aside the judgment passed by this court on 29.04.2009 and an opportunity was given to the defendants to lead evidence for proving the Will executed by Sh. Didar Singh and this court was directed to pass fresh judgment after taking on record original Suit No.282/10 Page : 2/26 Will and evidence of attesting witnesses and hearing the parties.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the suit are that the plaintiffs initially filed the present suit for declaration & perpetual injunction against the defendants. The suit was later on amended and the reliefs of partition and possession were also included in the suit.
3. In amended plaint, facts narrated are that the plaintiffs are the daughter of Late Sh. Didar Singh and defendants are their real brothers. Father of the parties had purchased a plot bearing No.128/47A, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi110051 and constructed the ground floor on the said plot consisting of four rooms, bath, latrine, kitchen and an open courtyard and started living in it along with his family. Plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 and defendants were born in the said house. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the defendants were married during the life time of their father Sardar Didar Singh and after his death plaintiff No.3 was married. After death of Sh. Didar Singh the property devolved upon his widow and plaintiffs and defendants in equal share. Plaintiff No.2 and the defendants along with their mother continued to reside in the said house as a Joint Hindu Family.
Suit No.282/10 Page : 3/26 After the death of mother of the parties, her 1/6th share devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendants in equal proportion and the parties became the owner of 1/5th undivided share equally in the above said property. It has been stated that the defendants are alleging that the plaintiffs have got no right in the suit property and they are the exclusive owners of the same.
4. It has been stated that the defendants have without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs constructed two rooms on the first floor and are trying to sell, transfer, alienate or otherwise part with th possession of the suit property in dispute to a third party. It has further been stated that the defendants have divided the property into two equal shares and have constructed a brick wall in the middle and are in actual possession of one portion each. It has further been stated that the defendants do not permit the plaintiffs to enter into the property. It has further been stated that on 11.11.1996, the defendant showed the suit property to some prospective purchasers but the deal could not be finalised because the said prospective purchasers wanted to know from the defendants if their names have been mutated in the Municipal records of Housetax. It has been stated that the Suit No.282/10 Page : 4/26 defendants are illegally trying to get their names mutated in the Municipal records of Housetax by misrepresenting that they are the absolute owners of the suit property. It has been stated that the defendants are not the absolute owners of the suit property and the suit property is still joint and plaintiffs have 1/5th undivided share each. It has further been stated that the plaintiffs do not want to keep the property joint any longer and want to have their shares separated by partition and claim possession. It has been prayed that the defendants be restrained from selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise parting with the possession of the suit property to any third party or getting only their names mutated in the Municipal records. It has also been prayed that a decree for declaration and partition and possession of the shares allotted to the plaintiffs and the defendants be passed.
5. The defendants appeared after service of summons and contested the suit by filing their written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable for misjoinder of the parties; that the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands before this Court and they have suppressed the Suit No.282/10 Page : 5/26 material facts; that the present suit is without any cause of action and the same is liable to be rejected/dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. On merits, it has been stated that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit property in any manner. The owner of the property late Sh. Didar Singh had executed a Will dated 24.12.1982 in favour of the defendants being sons of the deceased and as per Hindu Succession Act, after the demise of late Sh. Didar Singh, the defendants no. 1 and 2 became the owners of the suit property in equal shares and accordingly they built up the respective portion for the use and occupation of the family members of the defendants. It has further been stated that deceased Didar Singh has knowingly and intentionally left out the aforesaid plaintiffs from the property because the deceased have spent sufficient funds in their marriages and also given the funds from time to time and now the plaintiffs have no legal right, title or interest in the suit property. It has been stated that the suit has been under valued by the plaintiffs with malafide intentions. It has been denied that the defendants have without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs constructed two rooms on the ground floor of the suit property and are now Suit No.282/10 Page : 6/26 trying to sell, transfer, alienate or otherwise part with the possession of the suit property in dispute. It has been stated that entire story of the plaintiffs is concocted and false and with the purpose to take the benefit of their own wrongs. All other allegations made in the amended plaint have been denied.
6. The plaintiffs filed replication denying the contents of the amended WS in so far as they were contrary to the plaint. The contents of plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed.
7. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs no. 2 & 3 filed an application U/o 23 Rule 1 CPC. Their statements were recorded wherein they have stated that they have compromised the matter with the defendants and don't want to pursue the case. Thereafter, plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 have not contested the case.
8. Vide order dated 22.5.2001, Ld. Predecessor of this court framed the following issues :
1) Whether the suit is not maintainable for misjoinder of the parties? (OPD)
2) Whether the plaintiff is having a cause of action to file the present suit? (Onus pertain to both the parties).
Suit No.282/10 Page : 7/26
3) Whether Sh. Didar Singh had executed a Will dt. 24.12.82 in favour of the defendants? (OPD)
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? (OPP)
5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of partition? (OPP)
6)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as the plaintiffs are the owners of 1/5th undivided shares each in the suit property? (OPP)
7)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession in their 1/5th share as prayed for?
9. The plaintiff has examined her husband and special power of attorney Sh. Gian Singh as PW1 and she has examined herself as PW2. Both these witnesses have filed their evidence by way of affidavit EX.PW1/A and EX.PW2/A respectively. Thereafter, P.E. was closed.
10.The defendants have examined themselves as DW1 and DW2 and have tendered their examinationinchief by way of affidavit EX.DW1/A and EX.DW2/A respectively and closed their evidence.
Suit No.282/10 Page : 8/26
11. After the case was remanded by the Ld. Appellate Court, the defendants filed an application for summoning the trial court record in Probate Case No.279/01 decided by the court of Sh. G.P. Mittal, the then Ld. ADJ vide his judgment dated 15.07.2003. Defendants also examined DW3 Pyara Singh who filed his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.DW 3/A and identified his signatures on the Will Ex.DW3/1. The witness was cross examined and discharged. Defendants also filed an application U/s 69 r/w Section 73 of the Evidence Act seeking permission to examine one Roop Chand on the grounds that the second attesting witness of the Will Sh. Raj Kumar had expired. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2011.
12.I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for the defendants and have perused the record carefully. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by Counsel for the defendants. Defendants have also relied upon the following judgments in support of their arguments :
i) Savithri Vs. Karthyayni Amma & Ors., JT 2007 (12) SC 248
ii) B.Venkatamuni Vs. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh, 2007 (1) Suit No.282/10 Page : 9/26 RCR (Civil) 277
iii) Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, AIR 2003 SC 761
iv) Mathew Jacob Vs. Ms. Salestine Jacob, 1998 (3) RCR (Civil) 337 (Delhi High Court)
v) Makhan Ram @ Makhan Singh Vs. Ujagar Ram (Through LRs), 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 207 (P&H)
vi) Harpal Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh, 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 114 (P&H) Perusal of all the aforesaid judgments relied by the defendants show that all these judgments have reiterated well settled proposition of law that a Will can be proved by examining at least of the attesting witness and it is not required that both the witnesses must be examined to prove the Will.
13.It is an admitted case that the parties are the legal heirs of Late Sh. Didar Singh, who was the exclusive owner of the suit property. It is also an admitted fact that Sh. Didar Singh expired on 06.1.1983 and his wife expired in the year 1987. It is also an admitted fact that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs have claimed that Sh. Didar Singh as well as his wife expired intestate and hence, the parties have become entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit property being the legal heirs of late Sh. Didar Singh and his wife. The defendants, Suit No.282/10 Page : 10/26 on the other hand, have claimed that late Sh. Didar Singh had executed a Will dated 24.12.1982 in their favour and hence, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property and they have become owners of the suit property by virtue of the said Will.
14. My findings on the issues are as under : ISSUE NO.1 :
Whether the suit is not maintainable for misjoinder of the parties? (OPD)
15.The onus of proving this issue was on the defendants. Defendants in their WS have claimed that suit is not maintainable for misjoinder of the parties and the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit property. However, the defendants have not specified as to which of the parties have been wrongly joined by the plaintiffs in the suit. Even in their evidence filed by way of affidavit, defendants have not specified this fact. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs are the sisters of the defendants and hence, they are the legal heirs of late Sh. Didar Singh. In the absence of any evidence on record to show as to which of the parties have been wrongly joined by the Suit No.282/10 Page : 11/26 parties, I am of the considered opinion that the defendants have failed to discharge the onus cast on them and accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2 :
Whether the plaintiff is having a cause of action to file the present suit? (Onus pertain to both the parties).
16. The onus of proving this issue was cast on both the parties. The plaintiff no.1 in her evidence by way of affidavit EX.PW2/A has testified that Sh. Didar Singh had two sons and three daughters and their mother died in the year 1987 without executing any Will and Sh. Didar Singh had also expired intestate and hence, the parties became entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit property and recently the intention of the defendants have become morbid and they had constructed two rooms on the first floor of the property without the consent of the plaintiffs and are now trying to sell, transfer or alienate the suit property. It has further been stated that in November, 1996, the defendants showed the suit property to some prospective Suit No.282/10 Page : 12/26 purchasers but the deal could not be finalised and the defendants are trying to get their names mutated in the House tax records in the MCD. The defendants have also thrown a cloud over the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property by claiming it to be their own exclusively. In the cross examination, PW2 has denied that her father had executed any Will in favour of the any person. She also stated that her father had constructed the entire suit property.
17. The defendants, on the other hand, have claimed exclusive owner of the suit property by virtue of the Will and have denied that plaintiffs have any share in the same. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has established that she has a cause of action for filing the present suit as the defendants have denied her share in the suit property. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.3 :
Whether Sh. Didar Singh had executed a Will dt. 24.12.82 in favour of the defendants? (OPD)
18. The onus of proving this issue was on the defendants. The Suit No.282/10 Page : 13/26 defendants have claimed that late Sh. Didar Singh executed a Will dated 24.12.1982 in their favour and after his death they become the owners of the suit property.
In order to prove this issue, after the matter was remanded back by the Ld. Appellate Court, defendants examined DW3 Pyara Singh, the sole surviving attesting witness of the Will. Admittedly, the other attesting witness namely Sh. Raj Kumar has already expired.
19.Earlier, the defendants had examined themselves as DW1 and DW2. In their examinationinchief by way of affidavit EX.DW1/A and EX.DW2/A, they have testified that defendants have become the owners in equal shares by virtue of the Will. Perusal of cross examination of these witnesses show that the defendants had also filed a petition before Ld. District Judge for grant of probate in respect of the Will of late Sh. Didar Singh and the said petition has been dismissed on the ground that defendants were not able to prove the Will. From the cross examination of the witnesses, it also emerges that the defendants had filed an appeal which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, but there is no stay granted by the Hon'ble Suit No.282/10 Page : 14/26 High Court in the present proceedings.
20.Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act provides that where a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used in evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. In AIR 1964, Supreme Court 529 it was held that the mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in a case of the Will by Section 63 of Succession Act.
21. From the reading of Section 66 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 63 (c) of Succession Act, it is clear that it is sufficient even if one attesting witness is examined. In Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, AIR 2003 SC 761, it was held that : simply proving that signatures on the Will was that of testator is not enough. Requirement of its attestation by two or more witnesses is mandatory and attestation must be proved to have been made as required by Section 63(c) of Succession Act.
Suit No.282/10 Page : 15/26
22.In Savithri Vs. Karthyayni Amma & Ors., JT 2007 (12) SC 248, the legal requirements for proving the Will were stated in para 14 of the judgment which is reproduced as under :
"The legal requirements in terms of the said provisions are now wellsettled. A Will like any other documents is to be proved in terms of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder. The testamentary capacity of the propounder must also be established. Execution of the Will by the testator has to be proved. At least one attesting witness is required to be examined for the purpose of proving the execution of the Will. It is required to be shown that the Will has been signed by the testator with his free will and that at the relevant time he was in sound deposing state of mind and understood the nature and effect of the disposition. It is also required to be established that he has signed the Will in the presence of two witnesses who attested his signature in his presence or in the presence of each other. Only when there exist suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before it can be accepted as genuine".
Suit No.282/10 Page : 16/26
23.As noted above, DW3 Pyara Singh in his affidavit Ex.DW3/A has identified his signatures on the Will Ex.DW3/1 executed by deceased Didar Singh. He also deposed that Didar Singh had executed the Will in his sound mind in favour of the defendants on 24.12.1982. The witness further testified that he had accompanied Didar Singh to Seelampur Courts and signed the documents as an attesting witness and another attesting witness was Raj Kumar who had also accompanied them at the time of executing the documents.
24.In his crossexamination, he testified that Ex.DW3/1 was a plaint document but he had signed the same after it was typed and one Raj Kumar was alongwith him. He also testified that he knew Didar Singh since his childhood and Ex.DW3/1 was prepared at Seelampur Courts and he was asked to sign as a witness and he signed the same. He admitted that he had earlier deposed before the Court of Ld. District Judge on 8.9.2000.
25.A careful perusal of the entire testimony of DW3 Pyara Singh reveals that he has nowhere deposed that Sh. Didar Singh had signed the Will in the presence of two attesting witnesses who attested his signature in the presence of Didar Singh or in the Suit No.282/10 Page : 17/26 presence of each other. In the absence of these essential averments in the testimony of DW3 Pyara Singh, I am of the considered opinion that defendants have failed to prove the execution of the Will as required under law. The testimony of DW3 Pyara Singh is also otherwise not safe to rely upon as perusal of his crossexamination shows that he has deposed contrary to his earlier deposition in the Court of Ld. District Judge on 08.09.2000 on the material aspects. He denied the suggestion that in his testimony dated 08.09.2000 he had testified that he did not know from where Didar Singh got the papers prepared or what was written therein. He also denied the suggestion that in his testimony dated 08.09.2000 he had testified that nobody else had signed those papers in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that in his testimony dated 08.09.2000 he had testified that he did not knew what was written in the document mark X (herein exhibited as Ex.DW1/3). He also denied the suggestion that in his testimony dated 08.09.2000 he had testified that he (Didar Singh) used to remain ill and he got prepared various stamp papers and showed to him (Pyara Singh) at his shop and on his asking he had signed those Suit No.282/10 Page : 18/26 papers. He had also denied the suggestion that in his testimony dated 08.09.2000 he had testified that nobody else had signed those papers in his presence. This clearly shows that the statement made by DW3 in the present case is contradictory to his earlier statement made in the court of Ld. District Judge on 08.09.2000. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that defendants have failed to discharge the onus cast on them. Hence, the issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. ISSUE NO. 4 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? (OPP)
26.The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff in her plaint has alleged that defendants are trying to sell, transfer, alienate or otherwise part with possession of the suit property to any third party with a view to deprive the plaintiff, her due share and have also shown the suit property to some prospective purchasers representing themselves to be their absolute owners.
The plaintiff has prayed for the relief of permanent injunction on these allegations or restraining the defendants from selling, Suit No.282/10 Page : 19/26 transfer or alienating or otherwise parting with the possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has examined PW1 and PW2, who have reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. However, PW2 in her cross examination conducted on 08.09.2005 has specifically stated that "My brothers who are the defendants in the present suit, have not tried to sell out the suit property to anybody." Thus, there is a material contradiction in the testimony of PW2 with regard to the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff has not examined any other independent witness to prove the fact that the defendants are trying to sell the suit property. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff has not been able to discharge the onus cast on her and the issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NO.6 :
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as the plaintiffs are the owners of 1/5th undivided shares each in the suit property? (OPP)
27.The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are the owners Suit No.282/10 Page : 20/26 of 1/5th undivided share each in the suit property having inherited the same from their father late Sh. Didar Singh. The defendants have denied that plaintiffs have any share in the suit property & they have taken the defence that they have become the owners of the suit property in equal shares by virtue of Will dated 24.12.1982. However, the defendants have failed to prove the Will as required under issue No.3 and the said issue has already been decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
This establishes that late Sh. Didar Singh had died intestate and the parties being legal heirs of late Sh. Didar Singh are entitled to equal shares in the suit property which was owned by late Sh. Didar Singh. It is not the case of the defendants that there are any other legal heirs of late Sh. Didar Singh apart from the parties in the suit. Hence, as per the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff being the daughter of late Sh. Didar Singh is class1 heir of late Sh. Didar Singh and is entitled to equal share in the property of late Sh. Didar Singh along with the defendants. Thus the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit property.
In view of the aforesaid position, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and it is held Suit No.282/10 Page : 21/26 that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that she is owner of 1/5th undivided share in the suit property. ISSUE NO. 5 & 7 :
5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of partition? (OPP)
7)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession in their 1/5th share as prayed for?
28.These issues are taken up together as they are interrelated to each other. The onus of proving these issues was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the plaint has claimed that defendants have divided the property into two equal shares and have erected 10 to 11 ft. high wall in the middle and are in possession of one portion each and the defendants have not permitted to the plaintiff to enter into the suit property. It has further been stated that the defendants are illegally trying to sell the suit property despite being the facts that they are not the absolute owner of the suit property and are having only 1/5th undivided share each. The plaintiff has prayed for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds and for possession of the portion which falls to her share be given to her. The defendants have denied any right, title or Suit No.282/10 Page : 22/26 interest of the plaintiff in the suit property claiming that they have become the absolute owner in equal shares by virtue of the Will executed by their father late Sh. Didar Singh. Perusal of testimony of PW1 as well as PW2 show that neither PW1 nor PW2 have testified that the defendants have partitioned the suit property by meets and bounds and are in exclusive possession of their portions. In the absence of any evidence led by plaintiff in this regard, it cannot be said that the defendants have partitioned the suit property or that they have chosen to divide their respective shares.
29.Counsel for the defendants has argued that the suit property is a dwelling house only occupied by the defendants and the plaintiff cannot seek partition of the same in view of the provisions of Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act. Counsel for the defendants has also relied upon the judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts viz. (i) AIR 1992 Karnataka 362; (ii) AIR 1992 Calcutta 60; (iii) AIR 1964 Patna 206; (iv) AIR 1982 Calcutta 222; (v) AIR 1993 Orissa 36; (vi) AIR 1981 Madras 62; (vii) AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh 84; (viii) AIR 1983 Calcutta 22 and (ix) IV (2002) SLT 372 in support of his arguments that Section 23 of Suit No.282/10 Page : 23/26 Hindu Succession Act postpones the rights of any female heirs to claim partition of the dwelling house unless the male heirs chose to divide their respective shares therein.
30.Counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, has argued that vide Hindu Succession (Amendment Act 2005), Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act has been deleted from the statute and hence the plaintiff has a right to claim partition and possession in the suit property.
31.The present suit was filed in the year 1996 when Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act was in force. Initially, the suit was filed for relief of declaration and perpetual injunction only but, later on, the suit was amended vide order dated 11.02.1998 and the relief of partition and possession was included. However, even on that date, the provisions of Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act were in force. Hence, on that date of filing of the suit and as on the date of amendment of the suit, the bar of Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act was applicable on the plaintiff. Section 23 has been deleted from the Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005 itself i.e. during the pendency of this case, but at the time of institution of the case, the plaintiff was not having any right to Suit No.282/10 Page : 24/26 claim partition and possession in the suit property which was admittedly a dwelling house more particularly in view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish by way of evidence that defendants i.e. the male legal heirs had chosen to partition their shares or had partitioned the suit property.
32.In my considered opinion, the omission of Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act cannot be read retrospectively and it has to be given effect from the date when the amendment came into effect. Hence, the plaintiff had no right to claim partition and possession of the suit property as on date of filing of the suit. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to show that she was entitled to exercise her right of partition and possession at the time of filing of the suit. The issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. RELIEF :
33.Thus, in view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed qua the relief of permanent injunction, partition and possession. The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and a decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants that plaintiff is the owner of Suit No.282/10 Page : 25/26 1/5th undivided share in the suit property bearing No.128/47A, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi110051. No orders as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court Dated : 1st April, 2011 (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA) Senior Civil JudgeCumRent Controller (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Suit No.282/10 Page : 26/26
01.04.2011
Present : None for the plaintiff.
Defendant in person.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed qua the relief of permanent injunction, partition and possession. The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and a decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants that plaintiff is the owner of 1/5th undivided share in the suit property bearing No.128/47A, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi110051. No orders as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
SCJcumRC (NE)
KKD/Delhi/01.04.2011
Suit No.282/10 Page : 27/26