Delhi High Court
Jasvinder Kaur vs Jaspal Kaur & Ors on 24 October, 2016
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 848/2015
JASVINDER KAUR ..... Plaintiff
Through Ms. Anjali Chopra, Advocate
versus
JASPAL KAUR & ORS ..... Defendants
Through Mr. Manjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for
Defendant no.1.
Mr. P D Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Gurjeet Kaur, Advocate for defendant
no.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
ORDER
% 24.10.2016
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition, possession and
permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant
no.1. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 are the sisters of the plaintiff.
2. The suit properties comprises of being property No. L-28 (old no.17)
situated in Abadi known as Shastri Nagar, Village Chokri Mubarkabad,
Delhi, now popularly known as L-28, Shastri Nagar, Delhi- 110 052
measuring 100 sq. yards, built upto second floor.
3. The second property is M-10, Anand Parbat, Industrial Area, New
Delhi- 110 005 measuring 65 sq. yards, which is built up property.
Both the properties belonged to Sardar Manmohan Singh who died
intestate. Accordingly, all parties are entitled to 1/5th share in both the
properties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for defendant no.5 was impleaded as a party
admittedly on the apprehension that defendant no.1 was threatening to
sell the property to defendant no. 5.
5. Despite service, none is present on behalf of defendant no.5. Counsel
for the parties submit that as defendant no.5 is not a necessary party,
defendant no.5 may be deleted from the array of parties.
6. As prayed, defendant no.5 is deleted from the array of parties. Let an
amended memo of parties be filed.
7. Accordingly, as prayed a preliminary decree is passed defining the
shares of the parties as 1/5th shares each.
8. At this stage, parties submit that no useful purpose would be achieved
in appointing a Local Commissioner to suggest modes of partition, as
both the properties cannot be divided by metes and bounds having
regard to the size of the property.
9. Accordingly, a final decree is passed defining the shares of the parties
as 1/5th share, each.
10. Learned counsel for the parties further pray that leave be granted to the
parties to mutually sell the suit properties within a period of six months
and in case the properties cannot be sold within six months either of the
parties may approach the Court for execution of the decree.
11. As prayed, the parties would endeavour to sell the suit properties by
mutual consent within six months from today, failing which any of the
parties may approach the Court by filing an execution petition.
12. Defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 had initially argued that the property was
purchased by the mother. Since the parties have agreed to partition, this
question is no longer relevant, nor arises.
13. Parties are agreed that they will not claim any right of possession at the
time of sale of the property.
14. All the parties also agree that none of the parties will change the
character of the property, till the same are sold.
15. Accordingly, suit stands decreed in above terms. Let a decree sheet be
drawn up accordingly.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2016/P
