Smt. Anita Gupta & Ors vs Shri Narender Kumar Gupta & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 5752 Del

$~8
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      CS(OS) 632/2009

       SMT. ANITA GUPTA & ORS                  ..... Plaintiffs
                     Through  Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate


                           versus

       SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA & ANR       ..... Defendants
                    Through Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

                           ORDER

% 12.11.2014

1. This suit for partition and rendition of accounts has been filed by the

plaintiffs against the defendants in respect of property no. 6404, gali

no.4, Dev Nagar, near Kikarwala Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

The property was earlier owned by Sh. Ranjit Singh Gupta. On

partition of the property, 50 percent share measuring about 85 sq.

yards of property no. 6404, gali no.4, Dev Nagar, near Kikarwala

Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi came to the share of Shri Kishan

Gupta, father of the parties. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs

states that that Plaintiffs are not pressing for the proof of rendition of

accounts. He urges that a preliminary decree for partition in respect of

1/7th share of the suit property in respect of each of the plaintiffs and

defendants may be passed.

2. Defendant no.1 has filed written statement. It was the case of the

defendants that some other properties also were left by the deceased

Shri Kishan Gupta, father of the parties. It was also stated that the suit

was bad for non-joinder of Rahul and Shradha, who are the son and

daughter respectively of Sh.Narender Kumar Gupta, defendant no.1.

On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed by this court on

10.12.2010.

3. At the time of hearing of the suit, learned counsel for defendant no.1

has stated that possibly there cannot be any objection to the division of

property, subject matter of the suit. Defendant no.2 who appeared in

person however states that all the five daughters of Late Shri Kishan

Gupta were married in good families and substantial amounts were

spent by their father on their marriages and therefore defendant no.1

ought not to have been deprived from the peaceful possession of the

suit property.

4. My issue wise findings are as under:

ISSUE NO.1 Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Rahul and Shradha, as alleged in the written statement of defendant no.1?

5. Admittedly Rahul and Shradha are the children of defendant no.1. The

plaintiffs are seeking properties left by deceased Shri Kishan Gupta.

Since defendant no.1, the father of Rahul and Shradha is a party to the

present suit, they are not necessary parties and therefore, it cannot be

said that the suit is bad for non-joinder of Rahul and Shradha. This

issue is decided against defendant no.1.

ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the properties left by late Shri Kishan Gupta?

6. No evidence has been led by the defendants to prove that any other

property except as stated in para 1 of this order was left by Late Shri

Kishan Gupta. The contention raised by defendant no.2 that all the

daughters of deceased Shri Kishan Gupta i.e. plaintiffs no.1,3,4 and 5

and defendant no.2 were happily married and substantial amounts

were spent on their marriages will not be a ground to deprive the

daughters (who are the Class I legal heirs of deceased Shri Kishan

Gupta) from their legitimate share in the property left by their

deceased father. The testimony of the PW1 (Plaintiff no.3) that the suit

property is the only property left by deceased Shri Kishan Gupta

remains unchallenged and un- controverted. The relief of rendition of

accounts as stated earlier has been given up by the plaintiffs. Thus,

this issue is decided in affirmative.

ISSUE NO.3

RELIEF:

7. In view of this, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the

suit property i.e. property no. 6404, gali no.4, Dev Nagar, near

Kikarwala Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 85 sq. yards.

Each of the parties i.e. five plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 shall

be entitled to equal share i.e. 1/7th share in the suit property. I hereby

pass a preliminary decree accordingly.

8. Let the parties suggest the mode of partition.

9. Renotify on 04.03.2015.

G.P. MITTAL (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 12, 2014 gb