Ajay Miglani & Anr. vs Mona Sarin
2011 Latest Caselaw 4749 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Judgment Pronounced on: 23.09.2011

+ CS(OS) 286/2011


AJAY MIGLANI & ANR.                   ..... Plaintiff
              Through: Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Adv.

                         versus


MONA SARIN                                       ..... Defendant
                         Through: Mr. R.R. Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                            No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                     No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                    No
   in Digest?

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a suit for partition and rendition of

accounts. The case of the plaintiffs is that properties

mentioned below are joint properties of the plaintiffs and the

defendant, who have 1/3rd share each in them:

a) 1/3rd share out of 50% share in property bearing No.D-

17B, Ground Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi;

b) 1/3rd share out of 50% share in property bearing No.F-

237, Ground Floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi

c) 1/3rd share in plot No.31-P in Panipat Officer Coop.

House Building Society Ltd. Panipat vide Membership

No.186;

d) 1/3rd share in the bonds/shares of ICICI Limited,

Reliance Capital and Birla Sunlife and Locker;

e) 1/3rd share in the pension account with State Bank of

Patiala, Sector 15, Faridabad Branch, Haryana.

2. The plaintiffs are the brothers of the defendant.

The learned counsel for the defendant states that there is no

dispute that the properties, subject matter of this suit, are

joint properties of the parties and they have 1/3 rd share

each in them, but, according to the defendant, the

remaining half of property NoD-17B, Ground Floor, Kailash

Colony, New Delhi and Ground Floor of F-237, New Rajinder

Nagar, New Delhi was also owned by their father late Sh.

K.L. Miglani and, therefore, the defendant has 1/3 rd share

in the whole of these two properties. The case of the

plaintiffs with respect to these properties is that only 50%

share in them was owned by late Sh. K.L. Miglani, father of

the parties, whereas the remaining 50% in property No.D-

17B, Ground Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi is owned by

plaintiff No.2, and 50% in ground floor of property No.F-

237, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi is owned by plaintiff

No.1. Admittedly, the title deeds of these two properties

stand in the joint name of the father of the plaintiffs and

plaintiff No.2, whereas the title deed of property No.F-237,

Ground Floor, New Delhi stands in the joint name of the

father of the parties and plaintiff No.1. the learned counsel

for the defendant states that the defendant will take such

independent remedies as are open to her in law to prove

that the whole of these two properties were owned by their

father late Sh. K.L. Miglani and she has no objection to half

share of these two properties being made, subject matter of

the partition decree to be passed in this suit.

3. The learned counsel for the defendant further

states that if there is any other property which is owned by

the father of the parties that also needs to be disclosed by

the plaintiff. The learned counsel for plaintiff states, on

instructions from the plaintiff that no property other than

the property disclosed in the suit was owned by late Sh. K.L.

Miglani, father of the parties.

4. In these circumstances, with the consent of the

parties, a preliminary decree for partition of the above

referred properties is passed declaring that they have 1/3rd

share each in these properties. The learned counsel for the

defendant states if the defendant is able to identify any

other property belonging to father of the parties, she would

take such action as would be open to her in law with

respect to such properties. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate, who

is present in the Court, is appointed as Local Commissioner

to suggest the mode of partition of the aforesaid properties

by metes and bounds. He will submit his report within

eight weeks. He can take the assistance of the Architect to

be provided by the plaintiffs to assist him in giving report in

terms of this order. The fee of the Local Commissioner is

fixed at Rs.50,000/-, 1/3rd of which shall be paid by the

defendant and 2/3rd by the plaintiffs. A preliminary decree-

sheet be drawn accordingly.

Dasti.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 Ag