Delhi High Court
Lokesh vs Chaudhary Subash & Ors. on 24 April, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.2433/2011 & IA No.1035/2015
Decided on 24.04.2015
IN THE MATTER OF :
LOKESH ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms.Sucharita Ghosh, Advocate with
plaintiff in person
versus
CHAUDHARY SUBASH & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr.Arvind Bhatt, Advocates
for D-1 & D-2
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
IA No.1268/2015(by the plaintiff u/O XI R 12 CPC)
1. The present case has been placed before the court in terms of
an order dated 27.3.2015, passed by the learned joint Registrar, who
had recorded that the defendant No.1 had produced the original
documents, i.e., general power of attorney, deed of will, receipt dated
23.5.2000, deed of agreement along with affidavit dated 24.5.2000,
indemnity bond, no objection certificate, special power of attorney,
agreement to appoint arbitrator, possession letter and general power
of attorney dated 24.5.2000 etc. The said documents were duly
examined by the counsel for the plaintiff and the case has been placed
before the court in terms of the order dated 20.1.0215.
2. On 20.1.2015, the court had noted averments made by the
plaintiff in IA No.1268/2015, an application filed under Order XI Rule
12 CPC. In the course of arguments, counsel for the plaintiff had
stated that if the defendants produce the photocopies of the original
documents stated to have been executed by the plaintiff's father,
Lt.Chaudhary Man Singh, disposing off his share to the extent of 18
sq.yards in the suit property comprising of a larger area, by a set of
documents including registered GPA, registered will, Deed of
Agreement and receipt etc. in favour of his mother(grandmother of the
plaintiff), the plaintiff would honour the said documents and will not
pursue the present suit any further.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission, counsel for the defendants
No.1 & 2 was directed to produce the originals of the transfer
documents in question before the Joint Registrar for inspection by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff states that she and her client had
inspected the said documents and are satisfied with the same and
therefore, the plaintiff does not wish to pursue the present suit in so
far as laying a claim in the share of Lt.Chaudhary Man Singh in the
suit premises, to the extent of 18 sq.yrds. is concerned. She however
states that the plaintiff is entitled to a miniscule share in the suit
property that would have devolved on Chaudhary Bhagwan(son of
Chaudhary Ram Singh, brother of the plaintiff's father) who had died
intestate in the year 1995.
5. The aforesaid submission is however denied by the counsel for
the defendants No.1 & 2 who asserts that the plaintiff is not entitled
to any share whatsoever in the suit property.
6. Assuming that the plaintiff is entitled to sue in respect of the
said miniscule share that would have allegedly devolved on him on the
demise of Chaudhary Bhagwan, it is not denied that the valuation of
the suit would be reduced to below `20 lacs.
7. Accordingly, the present suit is disposed of with liberty granted
to the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for partition in respect of his
share, if any, in the suit property from Chaudhary Bhagwan's share,
before the competent court vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction in
that regard. It is clarified here that the court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the claim of the plaintiff for entitlement to a
share in the estate of Lt. Chaudhary Bhagwan, which shall be
examined by the competent court, in accordance with law.
8. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending application.
(HIMA KOHLI)
APRIL 24, 2015 JUDGE
mk
