Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This order shall decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of defendant no.1 and the application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure dated 27.09.2011 filed on behalf of defendant no.1.

2. Briefly adumbrated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are related to each other as mother and son. The plaintiff no.1 was married to the defendant no.1. The plaintiff no.2 is the son of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1. The defendant nos. 1 to 5 are stated to be brothers. Defendant no.6 is the Additional District Magistrate whereas defendant no.7 is Tehsildar, Najafgarh. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant nos. 1 to 5 are co­bhumidars with the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties, which are described hereinafter. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 5 are Hindus by religion and are engaged in agricultural activity on the joint family property. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the deceased grand­father of defendant nos. 1 to 5, Mr. Brij Ram was the owner of ancestral property which devolved upon his two sons namely Sh. Bakhtawar and Sh. Molad. The defendant nos. 1 to 5 are the sons of late Sh. Bakhtawar. It is further pleaded that part of ancestral property has devolved upon the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and the plaintiffs from another ancestor namely Sh. Lal Chand who had died without any other legal heir. The suit relates to the following properties (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the suit properties") :

8. According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid properties are ancestral properties having devolved upon the defendant nos. 1 to 5 from their father, who had succeeded to them from his own father. The plaintiffs have claimed that they are coparceners and co­bhumidars in respect of these properties.

Version of defendant no. 1:

9. The defendant no.1 has contended that the aforesaid properties have been purchased by the defendant nos. 1 to 5 in the year 1954 from one Sh. Gopi.

13.Hence, the plaintiffs cannot restrain the alienation of the aforesaid properties by the defendant no.1.

d. Land bearing khasra no. 116//6min(0­13) comprised in khata khatoni no. 698/609 in village Dichaon Kalan, Delhi; Version of the plaintiffs:

14.According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid property is ancestral property having devolved upon the defendant nos. 1 to 5 from their father, who in turn had succeeded to it from his father. The plaintiffs have claimed that they are coparceners and co­bhumidars in respect of the property.

58.The plaintiffs have themselves stated in paragraph no.3 of the plaint that "Sh. Brij Ram was owner in respect of ancestral suit property during his life time and after his death the same had been devolved upon his two sons". In the same paragraph, the plaintiffs have further stated that "After the death of Sh. Bakhtawar the ancestral suit property was devolved upon...". Thus, the plaintiffs have repeatedly averred that the ancestral properties were subject to "devolution". In case of property owned by a joint family or a coparcener, the suit property does not "devolve". It continues to vest in the joint family irrespective of the addition of members (by birth) or deletion of members (by death). The very fact that the properties have been devolving upon heirs shows that the properties have been subjected to succession and not survivorship. Such properties vest in the surviving legal heirs and the wife and son of a surviving legal heir do not secure any right in such property. As such, no restriction can be placed on the rights of the legal heirs, which in this case is the defendant no. 1, to deal with the property in so far as it is in accordance with the Delhi Land Reforms Act.