Man Mohan vs Shri Sham Lal And Others.
1999 Latest Caselaw 1139 Del

Citation : 1999 Latest Caselaw 1139 Del
Judgement Date : 29 November, 1999

Delhi High Court

Man Mohan vs Shri Sham Lal And Others. on 29 November, 1999

Equivalent citations: 2000 (52) DRJ 411

Author: M Sarin

Bench: M Sarin

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. This is an application seeking a restraint on the defendants from transferring or parting with possession the property bearing No. L-II-66, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan. In suit for partition and declaration, the plaintiff has sought a restraint on the defendant from transferring or parting with possession of the property No. L-II-66, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The relevant facts are briefly noted. The mother of the plaintiff and defendants , late Smt. Sumitra Devi made a Will dated 25.10.82, bequeathing the aforesaid property and her other moveables between the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 got 100 sq. yds. each of t he said plot. While defendant No. 2, was given the moveables as he was well settled in life otherwise. Testator had also expressed the hope that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 would look after their brother Shri Shakti Swaroop. It is not disputed before me that based on this disposition in the Will, each of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 occupied there respective portions and raised construction thereon. Plaintiff it is stated has even transferred and sold his part of the structure and his share in the land and moved away from the house. Mutation between the brothers of their respective portions was also done in the records of Municipal Corporation and the L. & D.O. In fact, the Will had not been disputed all along.

2. The plaintiff had moved another application IA No. 12023/96 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, where he sought an amendment in the plaint to set up a new case that had learnt from his close relation and Aunt that Late Smt. Sumitra Devi had altered the arrangement as per the Will. By a separate order the application for amendment has been refused.

3. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of a restraint on the defendants. Especially, when shares as per the Will had not been taken possession of by the parties and constructions having been raised by the two brothers and the plaintiff having himself sold his share. The application is dismissed and interim order dated 29th September, 1999 stands vacated.