Vikram Behl vs Sudhir Behl And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2895 Del

23
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  CS(OS) 1306/2011

                                                 Decided on : 10.04.2015

IN THE MATTER OF:
VIKRAM BEHL                                        ..... Plaintiff
                        Through : Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate with
                        plaintiff in person

                        versus

SUDHIR BEHL AND ORS.                           ..... Defendants
                   Through : Mr. Aditya Dewan, Advocate for D-1
                   Ms. Monica Chugh Manchanda, Advocate for D-2
                   Mr.Mayank Wadhwa, Advocate for D-3
                   Mr.Arush Khanna, Advocate for D-4

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

1.

This order is in continuation of the order dated 26.2.2015.

2. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit praying inter alia for

partitioning the movable assets of late Mrs. Shakuntala Behl, mother of

the parties.

3. On the last date of hearing, a comprehensive order was passed in

respect of the movable assets of the deceased, while leaving aside the

amounts lying in two bank accounts held by late Mrs. Shakuntala Behl in

the State Bank of India, Defence Colony Branch. As none of the parties

was aware of the exact amounts lying deposited in the said accounts,

notice was issued to the Manager of the said Bank directing him to give

the details of the moneys lying in accounts bearing No.10617024122

and 10617077720, by filing an affidavit within two weeks.

4. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Heera Singh

Pangtey, Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Defence Colony

Branch, stating inter alia that as per the Bank records, the account

bearing No. 10617024122 is a saving bank account in the name of Smt.

Shakuntla Behl and an amount of `23,54,694.20 paise is lying in the said

account, along with interest as on 7.4.2015. A copy of the statement of

account showing the aforesaid balance amount is enclosed with the

affidavit. As for account No.10617077720, it is stated that as on date,

no such account is existing.

5. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states that his client, who was the

second name holder/nominee, had closed the said account in the year

2010 and on the date when the said account was closed, a sum of

`3,21,144/- was lying therein. The aforesaid amount was deposited on

behalf of all the parties with the law firm, M/s O.P. Khaitan & Company

towards due diligence conducted by them in respect of the immovable

property owned by the deceased, Smt. Shakuntla Behl. He states that he

shall furnish a copy of the statement of account of the said Bank account

showing the credit balance therein as on the date of closure, to the

counsels for the plaintiff and the remaining defendants.

6. As for the maturity value of the Capital Gain Bonds deposited in

the Registry and lying in an FDR, the parties shall approach the Registry,

through their respective counsels, for the amount to be released to them

to the extent of 2/5th share in favour of the plaintiff, 1/5th share in favour

of the defendant No.1, 1/5th share in favour of the defendant No.2 and

the remaining 1/5th share of the defendant No.3, as has already been

clarified in para 10 of the order dated 26.2.2015.

7. In view of the order passed on 26.2.2015 and those passed above,

nothing further survives for adjudication in the present suit. The suit is

decreed in terms of the order dated 26.2.2015 and today's order, while

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. File be consigned to the record room.

                                                       (HIMA KOHLI)
APRIL 10, 2015                                            JUDGE
sk