Delhi High Court
Veeru Parshad Gupta vs Jogeshwari Devi on 25 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 586/2018
% 25th July, 2018
VEERU PARSHAD GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. A. Dwivedi and Mr.
Anurag Singh, Advocates.
versus
JOGESHWARI DEVI ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. Appl. Nos. 29351/2018 and 29353/2018 (for exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to just exceptions.
C.Ms. stand disposed of.
RFA No.586/2018 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 29352/2018 (for additional
evidence) & 29350/2018 (for stay)
2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning
the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 18.4.2018 by which the trial
court has decreed the suit for partition filed by the sister against the
appellant/defendant/brother. Partition has been granted giving each of
the parties 50% ownership interest in the property bearing no. 219,
Block D-71, Foota Road, Prem Nagar II, Opposite Krishna Public
School, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi
3. I need not narrate the facts in detail because it is an undisputed
position that the suit property was owned by the father of the parties
Sh. Rama Shanker. It is also not disputed that the father Sh. Rama
Shanker died intestate on 13.1.1998. The mother of the parties and the
wife of Sh. Rama Shanker also has died intestate and consequently the
appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff being the Class-I
legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would each be half
owner of the property inherited from their father Sh.Rama Shanker.
Appellant/defendant however pleaded that between the parties there
was an oral partition in the year 2002-03. Trial court has on this
defence held that self-serving averments/depositions of oral partition
cannot be believed, and with which I completely agree because
valuable immovable property cannot be held by Courts to have been
lost to a party simply because there is a case set up of an oral partition
and supported only by oral averments/depositions.
4. Oral averments in deposition of partition having taken place is
not discharge of onus of proof in the facts of the present case because
it is not disputed on behalf of the appellant/defendant before this Court
that after the alleged oral partition of the year 2002-03
appellant/defendant had not applied for and got mutated the suit
property in his sole/individual name and has paid property tax on his
own with respect to the suit property.
5. On behalf of the appellant/defendant it was also contended that
the suit property fell to the share of the appellant/defendant as per the
oral partition because with respect to other property of the father
bearing no. 52/16-B4, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi, the same
was sold and substantial price of this property was received by the
respondent/plaintiff, however, it is noted that the trial court in this
regard has rightly arrived at a finding that once again except making
self-serving statements in depositions and pleadings, no documentary
evidence has been led by the appellant/defendant with respect to the
fact that the respondent/plaintiff got more than her share when the
property at Anand Parbat was sold and hence it cannot be belived or
held that the respondent/plaintiff had no rights in the subject property
with respect to which partition has been pleaded.
6. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the appeal
and the same is hereby dismissed.
JULY 25, 2018 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK
