Delhi High Court
Tripta Sood vs Prem Sood & Ors. on 23 December, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: November 13, 2009
Date of Order: December 23, 2009
+IA 13247 of 2009 in CS(OS) 1819 of 2009
% 23.12.2009
Tripta Sood ...Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Brijesh Oberoi and Ms. Jyoti, Advocates
Versus
Prem Sood & Ors. ...Defendants
Through:, Advocates
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil
Procedure Code made by the applicant for impleading the applicant as a party.
2. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff for partition of the property bearing
number D-16, Nizzamuddin East, New Delhi wherein she had claimed that she was
having share in the property since the property originally belonged to Shri Gurbax Singh
and it was an ancestral property in the hands of Shri Gurbax Singh and it had to be
divided amongst his legal heirs. She, therefore, demanded partition of the suit property.
3. The applicant has claimed that he was bonafidely original purchaser of the
property and he had placed on record the documents leading to his title. The documents
CS(OS) 1819 of 2009 Tripta Sood v. Prem Sood & Ors. Page 1 Of 3
include the duly registered Will of late Shri Gurbax Singh wherein he has claimed that the
property was purchased by him from his own funds and it was a self-acquired property
and he had right to Will the property. This Will was executed and registered at Ajmer. It
was got probated, after death of testator from the District Court Ajmer. The probate of the
Will was issued on an application under Section 276 of Indian Successions Act by
District Judge, Ajmer and thereafter the property came into the hands of applicant by way
of transfer on the basis of valid documents. It is submitted by applicant that the mutation
of the property was also done in his favour. The applicant has placed on record all
documents showing acquisition of title over the property in question by him.
4. The application is opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the suit filed by
plaintiff was for partition. The plaintiff had issued a public notice that if somebody deals
with the property he shall be doing at his own peril. The applicant was not a necessary
party in a partition suit and, therefore, the application should be dismissed.
5. It is an undisputed fact that the property in question was mutated in the name of
the defendants no.2,3,5,6,7 & 8. The defendants had produced before the L&DO the
requisite documents which resulted into mutation in their favour. The property got
transferred to the applicant after it was made freehold and a conveyance deed was
executed by L&DO in favour of defendants no.2,3, 5,6, 7 and 8. These owners later
executed a sale deed in favour of the applicant. I, therefore, consider that the applicant
was a necessary party to the suit.
6. Also in view of the fact suit property whose partition is sought by way of present
suit stands already transferred in the name of applicant, in case applicant is not made a
CS(OS) 1819 of 2009 Tripta Sood v. Prem Sood & Ors. Page 2 Of 3
party, it shall simply gives rise to multiplicity of litigation and, therefore, the present
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is hereby allowed. The applicant is made
defendant to the suit in hand. The plaintiff however is given liberty to amend the suit on
the basis of information given by the applicant and is also directed to file amended memo
of parties within two weeks from today.
CS(OS) 1819 of 2009
1. List on 24th February 2010.
December 23, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
CS(OS) 1819 of 2009 Tripta Sood v. Prem Sood & Ors. Page 3 Of 3
