Monika vs Parinita And Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 7485 Del

$~12
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 836/2013
       MONIKA                                             ..... Plaintiff
                        Through : Mr. I.S. Chauhan, Advocate with
                        plaintiff in person.
                        versus

       PARINITA AND OTHERS                         ..... Defendants
                      Through : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
                      for D-1& 2 with defendants No.1 & 2 in person.
                      Mr. Vijay Khanna, Advocate for D-3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                        ORDER

% 30.09.2015

1. On 12.8.2015, a preliminary decree was passed in respect of the

immovable property bearing No.R-1/17, R-Block, Mohan Garden, New

Delhi, comprised in Khasra No.42/42/2 sitauted in village Hastal, New

Delhi, owned by the father of the parties.

2. Under the preliminary decree, the share of the parties was

determined and the plaintiff, defendants No.1, 2 & 3 were held entitled

to 1/4th undivided share each in the suit premises. Thereafter,

counsels for the parties had stated that in view of the nature of the

construction existing at the suit premises, the same cannot be

partitioned by metes and bounds and they had requested that they

may be permitted to consult with each other and inform the Court, if

they would be ready and willing to buy out each other's share.

3. Today, counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3

state, on instructions, that neither party is in a financial position to

buy out each other's shares. The collective offers stated to have been

made by the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 & 2 to buy out the

defendant No.3's share has fallen through for the reason that the

defendant No.3 is unwilling to accept the amount offered by them.

4. Counsels for the parties jointly state that instead of appointing a

Local Commissioner to dispose of the premises in the open market and

apportioning the sale proceeds between the parties thereafter, the

preliminary decree dated 12.8.2015 may be converted into a final

decree and the parties be left to apportion their respective shares from

out of the sale proceeds of the suit premises, on finding a suitable

buyer.

5. Accordingly, the preliminary decree dated 12.8.2015 is

converted into a final decree. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

The parties shall be entitled to dispose of the suit premises in the open

market by jointly taking steps to identify a prospective purchaser.

Thereafter, the sale proceeds shall be apportioned between the parties

as per their respective shares. If the parties are unable to take

joint steps on the lines noted above within six months, then they shall

be entitled to approach the Court and seek execution of the judgment

and decree in accordance with law.

6. The suit is disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 sk/ap