Delhi High Court
Vikas Malhotra vs Harish Malhotra & Ors. on 6 May, 2015
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 3386/2014
Decided on : 06.05.2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIKAS MALHOTRA ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advocate
versus
HARISH MALHOTRA & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Naresh Thanai and
Mr.Himashu Pathak, Advocates for D-1 to D-4
Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar and
Mr.Sameep Vijayvargiye, Advocate for D-5
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)
1.
The plaintiff has instituted the present suit praying inter alia that
premises bearing No.49, Block-4, Roop Nagar, measuring 265.4
sq.yrds., belonging to Lt.Prakash Lal Malhotra, be partitioned.
2. Counsels for the parties state that Sh.Prakash Lal Malhotra had
died intestate on 22.1.1985, leaving behind his wife, four sons and the
daughter. Defendants No.1 to 3 are the sons of Lt.Prakash Lal
Malhotra and the defendant No.4 is his daughter. The plaintiff and the
defendant No.5 are the children of the fourth son, Sh.Ravindra
Kumar. After the demise of Lt.Prakash Lal Malhotra, the defendant
No.4 had executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 21.2.1985,
relinquishing her 1/6th undivided share in the suit premises in favour
of her mother, Lt.Sushila Malhotra and her four brothers. It is further
stated that Smt.Sushila Malhotra, wife of Lt.Prakash Lal Malhotra had
died intestate on 12.7.2007. At the time of her demise, she was
entitled to 1/5 undivided share in the suit premises.
3. Upon the demise of Sushila Malhotra, she was survived by four
sons and daughter, i.e., the father of the plaintiff and the defendant
No.5, defendants No.1, 2 & 3(sons) and defendant No.4(daughter).
Sh.Ravindra Kumar, father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 had
died intestate on 27.12.2009, leaving behind his wife, a son and a
daughter. Mrs.Motia Malhotra, wife of Sh.Ravindra Kumar had died
intestate on 19.4.2011, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant
No.5 as her legal heirs. As a result, the plaintiff and the defendant
No.5 claim an entitlement to 12% undivided share each in the suit
premises.
4. Counsels for the defendants No.1 to 4 & 5 state that they have
no objection to a preliminary decree being passed in respect of the suit
premises in the proportion mentioned in para 11 of the plaint.
5. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, a preliminary decree is
passed and it is declared that the parties are entitled to the following
undivided shares in the suit premises:
(i) Plaintiff = 12%
(ii) Defendant No.1 = 24%
(iii) Defendant No.2 = 24%
(iv) Defendant No.3 = 24%
(v) Defendant No.4 = 4%
(vi) Defendant No.5 = 12%
6. At this stage, counsels for the parties state that the appointment
of a Local Commissioner may be deferred to enable them to negotiate
a settlement and see if the suit premises can be partitioned by metes
and bounds and sort out other lingering disputes between the parties,
if possible.
7. At the joint request of the counsels for the parties, list on
9.7.2015 in the category of `Directions' for reporting a settlement, if
any.
IA No.21953/2014(u/O XXXIX R 1 & 2 CPC)
1. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, the interim
order dated 12.11.2014 is made absolute, during the pendency of the
present suit.
2. The application is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MAY 06, 2015 JUDGE
mk
