Delhi High Court
Rajnesh Pathak vs Karuna Lakhanpal & Ors on 1 September, 2016
$~6.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 722/2014 and I.A. 22740/2014, 4601/2014, 4602/2014
RAJNESH PATHAK ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Advocate
versus
KARUNA LAKHANPAL & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Sonal Jain, Advocate with
Ms. Heena Sharma, Advocate for D-1 and D-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 01.09.2016
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff praying inter alia
for a decree of declaration, partition, rendition of accounts and mandatory
injunction.
2. The first relief in the plaint is for passing a decree of declaration
against the defendants declaring the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 as joint
owners of half of the premises bearing No.M-73, Greater Kailash-II, New
Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan enclosed with the plaint.
3. Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 states at the outset that his
clients are not laying any claim to any part of the aforesaid property, which
is the subject matter of the will dated 02.02.2013 executed by late Shri
Chaman Lal Pathak, father of the parties, on the condition that the plaintiff
be called upon to state that he is not disputing the legality and validity of the
said will.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff states that his client has duly accepted the
execution of the will dated 2.2.2013, by late Sh. Chaman Lal Pathak.
5. In view of the fact that the defendants No.1 and 2 do not have any
objection to the grant of the relief at prayer clause (a) of the plaint, a decree
of declaration is passed, declaring that the plaintiff and the defendant No.3
are joint owners of half of the premises bearing No.M-73, Greater Kailash-
II, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan enclosed with the
plaint.
6. At prayer (b), the plaintiff seeks a decree of mandatory injunction
against the defendants No.1 and 2, directing them to hand over the original
sale deed in respect of premises bearing No.M-73, Greater Kailash-II, New
Delhi, owned by late Shri Chaman Lal Pathak.
7. Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 denies that the title deeds of
the suit premises are in the possession of his clients and submits it is for the
plaintiff to take necessary steps in this regard.
8. Counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the statement made by
the counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2, as above he shall take necessary
steps for reconstruction of the title deeds, as per law.
9. A part of the relief prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint is for
directions to the defendants No.1 and 2 to disclose the status of the
movable/immovable properties in India and abroad owned by the parents of
the parties, as per the annexures enclosed with the plaint.
10. Counsel for the plaintiff states that as probate petitions in respect of
the wills executed by the parents of the parties are pending adjudication in
the Bombay High Court and the plaintiff is participating in the said
proceedings, he does not wish to press the aforesaid relief.
11. Coming next to the relief prayed for at prayer clause (c) of the plaint,
learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the fact that prior to the
institution of the present suit, the husband of the defendant No.1 (executor
of the will of late Shri Chaman Lal Pathak) had filed a probate petition in the
Bombay High Court and the defendant No.2 has filed a probate petition in
respect of the will of late Smt. Nirmala Pathak dated 24.08.2012 that is also
pending before the Bombay High Court, he does not wish to proceed any
further with the reliefs prayed for at prayer clause (c), for the present.
12. The last relief prayed for by the plaintiff is for a decree of partition in
respect of property bearing No.B-701, Amar Apartments, Thakur Complex,
Kandivali (East), Mumbai.
13. Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 states that the defendant No.1
and her husband are the owners of the aforesaid premises. The share
certificates in respect of the said flat were issued in favour of the defendant
No.1 on 03.11.2011 and the sale deed in respect of the said flat was executed
in favour of the defendant No.1 and her husband on 31.03.2000. Learned
counsel states that the said flat is not even the subject matter of the will
executed by the mother of the parties.
14. Counsel for the plaintiff reserves his right to seek his legal remedies
against the defendant No.1, in respect of the aforesaid flat, on the decision of
the aforesaid two probate proceedings pending in the Bombay High Court.
Leave as prayed for is granted.
15. No other relief has been prayed for in the present suit.
16. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the suit is partly decreed
in terms of para 5 of the order passed hereinabove. Decree sheet be drawn
accordingly.
17. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending applications while
leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2016
rkb/ap
