Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: PAPRAWAT in Suman Gautam vs Smt. Chand Kaur on 31 August, 2022Matching Fragments
19), situated in the revenue estate of village Paprawat, New Delhi and ancestral house area measuring approximately 250 sq. yards, which falls under old Lal Dora (hereinafter referred to as "suit property").
2. The grandfather of the plaintiff constructed the above said ancestral house from his hard earned money and after the death of father of the plaintiff, the parties to the suit became the owner of the above said properties being LRs of the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was regularly looking after the above said ancestral properties and had many times requested the defendants to partition the ancestral properties by metes and bounds. It is further stated that the defendant Suit no. 370/18 Suman Gautam Vs. Chand Kaur & Ors 4/34 no. 1, 4 & 5 tried to remove the old structure of the ancestral house area measuring approximately 250 Sq. yards without the consent and permission of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1, 4 and 5 also started fresh construction upon area measuring 150 sq. yards, out of the total land of the suit property which is 1/3rd of the suit property. The plaintiff came to know about this fact in April 2018 when she came to her paternal home. The plaintiff objected to it but the defendant no.1, 4 and 5 threatened her of dire consequences.
(3) Whether the suit properties are agricultural land and the suit is barred by the provisions of DLR Act?......OPD 1,2,4 and 5.
(4) Whether the properties i.e. area measuring 150 Sq. yards, out of the total land i.e. 1/3rd of the property in Khata No.392/378, Khasra No. 252(009), 21/2(119), situated in the revenue estate of village Paprawat, New Delhi, total area 400 square yards (150+250) are joint properties of the parties, if so, to what share the parties are entitled?.....OPP. (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for?........OPP.
DW4 Sh. Anil Kumar, Patwari, from the office of SDM Kapashera has proved the summoned record i.e. Khasra Girdwari no. Khasra 4/21/1 and 252 for the year 201819 of village Paprawat, New Delhi as Ex. DW4/1. He has also proved the report in respect of House located in Old Lal Dora (Abadi Deh) as Ex. DW4/2 and copy of Khatoni of Khasra no. 252 and 4//21/1 as Ex. DW4/3.
Further, as per the report dated 30.09.2019 filed by SDM Kapashera, Ex.DW4/2, the suit property falls in old Lal Dora Abadi in Village Paprawat. It is further reported that a house with approximate area measuring 250 sq. yards in the suit property was in possession of Late Sh. Bhagwan Sahai and at that time a tenant was residing in the said flat. Hence, it is clear that suit property is a residential property and not an Suit no. 370/18 Suman Gautam Vs. Chand Kaur & Ors 14/34 agricultural land.
Suit no. 370/18 Suman Gautam Vs. Chand Kaur & Ors 18/34 D3W2 is Sh. Raj Kumar Mudgil, cousin of plaintiff and defendants. He stated that his father and other two brothers including Late Bhagwan Sahai were then residents of Paprawat Village at the property in Khata no. 392/378, Khasra No. 252(009) 21/2 (119) situated in Revenue Estate of village Paprawat. He stated that Late Bhagwan Sahai had four daughters and two sons and Sh. Vikas and Sunil are sons of Late Gayatri Devi, one of the daughter of Late Bhagwan Sahai. In his crossexamination D3W2 admitted that partition had taken place amongst his father and his two brothers in their ancestral properties.