Delhi High Court
Suneel Kumar Muttoo vs V.K Muttoo & Anr. on 30 April, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
26
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2184/2010
SUNEEL KUMAR MUTTOO ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.C.P.Sharma, Advocate with the
plaintiff in person
versus
V.K MUTTOO & ANR. .... Defendants
Through Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Mr.K.P.S.Kohli,
Mr.Prashand Jain, Advocates for D-1 with D-1
in person
Mr.Anil Airi, Mr.Ravi Krishan Chandna,
Mr.Aman Madan, Advocates for D-2 with
Mr.Pramod Sharma, AR of the D-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 30.04.2015
1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 7.4.2015.
2. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for partition and
injunction against his two siblings, in respect of property bearing
No.F-9, East of Kailash, New Delhi, measuring 500 sq.yards owned by
Lt.B.N.Muttoo, father of the parties, to the extent of 1/3rd undivided
share therein.
3. On 7.4.2015, the court had interacted with the counsels for the
parties and some suggestions had been exchanged between the
parties.
4. Today, the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Mr.Pramod Sharma,
brother-in-law of the defendant No.2 are present. The defendant No.1
is the eldest sibling, defendant No.2 is at the second place and the
plaintiff is the youngest brother.
5. The defendant No.1 has taken a stand in the written statement
that he, along with the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 are entitled to
25% undivided share each in the suit premises and upon the demise
of their mother, Smt.Anjani Muttoo on 4.3.2010, her 25% share had
devolved on him, by virtue of an un-registered will dated 25.3.2015
executed by the mother. The execution of the will is however disputed
by the plaintiff. So, the dispute in the present case is limited to the
mother's 25% undivided share.
6. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states on instructions from her
client that out of 25% undivided share of the mother, that has
devolved on her client under the will, he is willing to offer 10% share,
which may be divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant
No.2.
7. Counsel for the defendant No.2 states on instructions that his
client is willing to accept the aforesaid offer 5% undivided share from
out of 25% of the undivided share held by the mother. In other
words, the defendant No.2 is willing to accept 30% undivided share in
the suit premises in full and final settlement of all his claims. This
takes care of the defendant No.2's share in the suit premises.
8. Coming to the plaintiff, counsel for the plaintiff states that if the
defendant No.1 is willing to offer 7% instead of 5% undivided share
out of the mother's 25% share, his client would be agreeable to giving
up his claim of 1/3rd undivided share in the suit premises and confining
his claim to 32% undivided share.
9. Counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that as the eldest
brother, he is willing to offer the plaintiff, who is the youngest sibling,
an additional 2% share, over and above 5% share from out of the
mother's 25% undivided share, which would then total to 32%
undivided share in the suit premises.
10. Counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions from his client accepts
the aforesaid offer of 32% undivided share. It is agreed by all the
parties that the balance share, i.e., 38% undivided share in the suit
premises shall go to the defendant No.1.
11. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, a preliminary
decree is passed holding inter alia that the plaintiff is entitled to 32%,
defendant No.1 is entitled to 38% and the defendant No.2 is entitled
to 30% undivided share in the suit premises respectively. Counsels
for the parties state that having regard to the extent of space available
in the built up structure presently existing on the suit premises, it is
not feasible to partition the same by metes and bounds. All the
parties state that none of them are in a position to purchase the
other's shares and therefore, the suit premises will have to be sold in
the open market for it to fetch the best possible price and thereafter,
the sale proceeds can be divided amongst the parties to the extent of
their respective shares, as recorded hereinabove.
12. At the joint request of the counsels for the parties who seek
some time to identify a suitable buyer for the suit premises, list on
3.9.2015, in the category of `Directions'.
13. In token of their acceptance of the settlement recorded
hereinabove and the preliminary decree passed on the said basis, all
the parties/authorized representatives and their counsels shall affix
their signatures on today's order sheet.
IA No.6687/2013(by D-2 u/O XXXIX R 1 & 2 CPC)
With the consent of the counsels for the parties, this application
is disposed of having been rendered infructuous.
IA No.2934/2014 (by the plaintiff u/S 3 and 4 of Partition Act )
(for directions to sell the suit property and for appointment of
a LC) & I.A. 2532/2015 (by D-2 u/S 2 and 3 of Partition Act)
(for sale of suit property and release of sale proceeds and for
direction to deposit the balance amount equivalent to 25% of
the sale proceeds)
1. In view of a preliminary decree passed above, counsels for the
parties do not wish to press these applications.
2. The applications are disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
APRIL 30, 2015
mk
