Delhi High Court
Prithvi Raj Soin Since Decd Thru ... vs Anjana Kumari Soin & Ors on 8 August, 2013
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 8th August, 2013
+ RFA 83/2013 & CM No.2334/2013 (for stay)
PRITHVI RAJ SOIN SINCE DECD THRU LRS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Indu Shekhar & Mr. Ankush
Shekhar, Advs.
Versus
ANJANA KUMARI SOIN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Inderjeet Saroop, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This first appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree dated
14.08.2012 in Civil Suit No.14/2007 (Unique Case I.D.
No.02401C0047452007) of the Court of Additional District Judge-09, Tis
Hazari Courts, District Central, Delhi. The said suit was filed by the
respondents No.1 to 6 against the appellants and the respondents No.7 to 14
for partition of property No.757, Ward No.6, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The
learned Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment has passed a
preliminary decree for partition by metes and bounds declaring the
respondents No.1 to 6 to be collectively entitled to one-sixth share in the
said property. The appellants and the respondents No.7 to 14 were also
restrained from transferring, selling, mortgaging or creating any lien over
the said property.
2. Notice of this appeal was issued. Vide order dated 15.03.2013, the
parties were referred to the Mediation Cell of this Court. Mediation was
however unsuccessful. However thereafter when the matter came up before
this Court on 03.05.2013, the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6 stated
that the respondents No.1 to 6 were willing to collectively accept
Rs.12,00,000/- towards their one-sixth share in the suit property. The matter
was adjourned to enable the counsel for the appellants to take instructions.
The counsel for the appellants on 30.05.2013 stated that the said offer of the
respondents No.1 to 6 was acceptable to the appellants and sought two
months time to make the payment. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned
to today.
3. The counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6 informs that in the
interregnum a final decree for partition has also been passed in the suit; that
the respondents No.1 to 6 had put the total value of the property at
Rs.60,00,000/- and since the appellants or any other respondents failed to
submit any bid, the said valuation was accepted and a final decree for
partition has been passed directing that upon the respondents No.1 to 6
depositing five-sixth of the total value of Rs.60,00,000/- in the court, the
appellants and the remaining respondents shall deliver possession and
convey title of the said five-sixth share in favour of the respondents No.1 to 6.
4. The counsel for the appellants states that he has brought six pay
orders for Rs.2,00,000/- each in the name of each of the respondents No.1 to
6 and is willing to handover the same to the counsel for the respondents
No.1 to 6 in lieu of the one-sixth share of the respondents No.1 to 6 in the
property.
5. The counsel for the appellants on enquiry states that since it is the
appellants alone who are paying the said sum of Rs.12,00,000/- to the
respondents No.1 to 6, the one-sixth share of the respondents No.1 to 6 will
upon the said payment stand transferred / conveyed to the appellants, to the
exclusion of the respondents No.7 to 14.
6. Though counsel for the respondents No.7 to 14 had appeared earlier,
none appears for them today.
7. The counsel for the appellants states that though he has is not holding
the vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No.7 to 14 but they have no
objection to the said arrangement.
8. The counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the respondents
No.1 to 6 consent to modification of the final decree dated 08.04.2013 for
partition also, even though this appeal was confined to the challenge to the
preliminary decree.
9. The same is permitted.
10. The pay orders for Rs.12,00,000/- have been handed over by the
counsel for the appellants to the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6 who
has accepted the same on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 6 in full and
final settlement of all claims of the respondents No.1 to 6 towards their one-
sixth share in the property No.757, Ward No.6, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
11. Accordingly, though this appeal, insofar as against the preliminary
decree for partition, is infructuous in view of the appellants admitting the
respondents No.1 to 6 to be having one-sixth share and paying value thereof
and is disposed of as such but the final decree dated 08.04.2013 of partition
is set aside and it is further declared that the appellants having paid the
consideration of the one-sixth share of the respondents No.1 to 6 in the
property No.757, Ward No.6, Mehrauli, New Delhi to the respondents No.1
to 6, would be entitled to the said one-sixth share in the property as against
the respondents No.7 to 14. Since the preliminary decree for partition also
does not declare the inter se shares of the appellants and the respondents
No.7 to 14, need is not felt to decide the same in this appeal.
12. In view of the respondents No.1 to 6 having received the value of
their share, the decree dated 14th August, 2012 of injunction restraining the
appellants and respondents No.7 to 14 from transferring, selling, mortgaging
or creating any lien over the property is also set aside.
13. The appeal is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be drawn up.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 08, 2013
'gsr'..
