Judgment:
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 632/2009 SMT. ANITA GUPTA & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL % 1. ORDER
1211.2014 This suit for partition and rendition of accounts has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants in respect of property No.6404, gali no.4, Dev Nagar, near Kikarwala Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The property was earlier owned by Sh. Ranjit Singh Gupta. On partition of the property, 50 percent share measuring about 85 sq. yards of property No.6404, gali no.4, Dev Nagar, near Kikarwala Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi came to the share of Shri Kishan Gupta, father of the parties. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that that Plaintiffs are not pressing for the proof of rendition of accounts. He urges that a preliminary decree for partition in respect of 1/7th share of the suit property in respect of each of the plaintiffs and defendants may be passed.
2. Defendant no.1 has filed written statement. It was the case of the defendants that some other properties also were left by the deceased Shri Kishan Gupta, father of the parties. It was also stated that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Rahul and Shradha, who are the son and daughter respectively of Sh.Narender Kumar Gupta, defendant no.1. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed by this court on 10.12.2010.
3. At the time of hearing of the suit, learned counsel for defendant no.1 has stated that possibly there cannot be any objection to the division of property, subject matter of the suit. Defendant no.2 who appeared in person however states that all the five daughters of Late Shri Kishan Gupta were married in good families and substantial amounts were spent by their father on their marriages and therefore defendant no.1 ought not to have been deprived from the peaceful possession of the suit property.
4. My issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE NO.1 Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Rahul and Shradha, as alleged in the written statement of defendant no.1?.
5. Admittedly Rahul and Shradha are the children of defendant no.1. The plaintiffs are seeking properties left by deceased Shri Kishan Gupta. Since defendant no.1, the father of Rahul and Shradha is a party to the present suit, they are not necessary parties and therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is bad for non-joinder of Rahul and Shradha. This issue is decided against defendant no.1. ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the properties left by late Shri Kishan Gupta?.
6. No evidence has been led by the defendants to prove that any other property except as stated in para 1 of this order was left by Late Shri Kishan Gupta. The contention raised by defendant no.2 that all the daughters of deceased Shri Kishan Gupta i.e. plaintiffs no.1,3,4 and 5 and defendant no.2 were happily married and substantial amounts were spent on their marriages will not be a ground to deprive the daughters (who are the Class I legal heirs of deceased Shri Kishan Gupta) from their legitimate share in the property left by their deceased father. The testimony of the PW1 (Plaintiff no.3) that the suit property is the only property left by deceased Shri Kishan Gupta remains unchallenged and un- controverted. The relief of rendition of accounts as stated earlier has been given up by the plaintiffs. Thus, this issue is decided in affirmative. ISSUE NO.3 RELIEF:
7. In view of this, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the suit property i.e. property No.6404, gali no.4, Dev Nagar, near Kikarwala Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 85 sq. yards. Each of the parties i.e. five plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 shall be entitled to equal share i.e. 1/7th share in the suit property. I hereby pass a preliminary decree accordingly.
8. Let the parties suggest the mode of partition.
9. Renotify on 04.03.2015. G.P. MITTAL (JUDGE) NOVEMBER12 2014 gb