Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: KAROL BAGH in Shri Parkash Chander Bhalla vs Shri Sudesh Chander Bhalla And Ors. on 18 January, 2008Matching Fragments
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reasons stated in paragraphs 14, 20 and 21 of the Written Statement of defendants 1, 3 and 4 and Preliminary Objection No. 1 and 2 of written statement of defendant No. 2 ?
2. Whether the plaintiff cannot reserve his right to claim partition of the Property No. 53/1, Original Road, D.B. Gupta Road, New Delhi ?
3. Whether the defendant No. 2 was the co-owner of House No. 22, Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Along with late Shri H.R. Bhalla?
4. Whether defendant No. 4 has no right, title or interest in premises No. 22, Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi?
3. Whether the defendant No. 2 was the co-owner of House No. 22, Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Along with late Shri H.R. Bhalla
13.1 This issues pertain to the property No. 22, Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Defendant No. 2 has claimed that he was the co-owner of said house along with late Shri H.R. Bhalla as the same was purchased from the funds of the partnership business of M/s H.R. Bhalla and Sons. The defendant No. 2 contended that the partnership firm in the name and style of M/s H.R. Bhalla and Sons was started by deceased father and the defendant No. 2 in 1947 and the plot was purchased at that time and thereafter, out of the funds of the partnership firm, the construction was done between 1952 and 1954 out of the joint funds. The Defendant No. 2 also alleged that at the time of formation of partnership business, the plaintiff was only 6 years old and the defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were aged 13 years, 8 years and 15 years respectively who were not partners and did not have any share in the partnership business and therefore, the defendant No. 2 has 50% share and deceased Shri H.R. Bhalla had only 50% share in the said property and the plaintiff cannot claim 1/5th share in the entire property. These allegations and pleas are denied by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1,3 and 4.
14.6. The alleged photocopy of the letter alleged to be written by Shri H.R. Bhalla to defendant No. 4 has not been proved. The defendant No. 2 in the facts and circumstances is unable to prove that the defendant No. 4 had given up his right in 22 Park Area property on account of Anand Niketan property purchased in the name of defendant No. 4 from the funds of joint family. The basis of the plea of the defendant No. 2 that defendant No. 4. had no right in House No. 22, Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, seems to be based on the 17th January, 1997 letter which was marked as D4/X4 allegedly written by Shri H.R. Bhalla to defendant No. 4 incorporating the alleged assurance alleged to have been given by defendant No. 4 to Shri H.R. Bhalla that he will not claim any rights in the residential House ?Bhalla Houase? 22 Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The alleged letter alleged to be signed by Shri H.R. Bhalla also seems to have a stipulation that the loan raised by the defendant No. 4 from LIC for the purchase of House No. C-66, Anand Niketan, by defendant No. 4 was reimbursed by way of monthly rental of house from the company, M/s. Mechanical Movements Pvt. Ltd., to phase repayment of interest and loan.
10. What will be the respective share of the parties in the suit property?
17.1 The defendant No. 5, 6, 7 and 8, daughters of late Shri H.R. Bhalla have already relinquished their share in favor of their brothers, plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The widow of late Shri H.R. Bhalla has already expired. ?Consequently, the property of late Shri H.R. Bhalla, which is yet to be partitioned, ?Bhalla House?, 22 Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, is to be divided between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 4. As plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are five legal heirs of late Shri H.R. Bhalla who are entitled for equal shares in his property, the share of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 4 in the joint family property, ?Bhalla House?, 22 Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, shall be 1/5th share each. Issue is thus decided accordingly holding that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have 1/5th share each.