JITENDER SINGH BINDRA Vs. KEWAL BINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal were the defendants in Suit No. 3686 of 1991, which was filed by the respondents herein as plaintiffs. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the daughters and respondent no.4 is the widow of the Late Shri S.S.Bindra (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased', for short). The appellants are the two sons of the deceased. The deceased was the owner of house no.10-E/A, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and he died intestate on 4/9/1985. This is a double storeyed house built upon land measuring 200 sq. yards with the following constructions:- Ground floor - Four rooms, two kitchens, two combined latrines and bath, front open verandah and back open verandah. ii. First floor - Three rooms, two covered verandahs, one kitchen, one latrine, bath room, one store and balcony. iii. Second floor - two rooms, store, latrine, bath room.

(2.) The appellants, both of whom are married, are living in the Suit premises alongwith their families. Their mother-respondent no.4 as well as respondents 1 and 2 (two unmarried daughters), are also living in the Suit premises. Respondent no.3 who is a married daughter is staying with her husband in her matrimonial home. The parties are living on the first and second floor. However, the extent of occupation of the Suit premises by these parties is a matter of dispute. Admittedly ground floor of the property in question is let out to two different tenants namely, Mr. S.Krishnamurthy and Shri Michael Chirangoo.

(3.) The deceased died intestate. On the allegations that respondents 1, 2 and 4 have no source of income and are totally dependent upon rental income received, from one of the tenants namely Shri S. Krishnamurthy and that the relations between the plaintiffs and defendants have not been very cordial for the last many years, the plaintiffs filed Suit No.3686 of 1991 for partition of property in question. Appellants (defendants in the Suit) contested the Suit by filing written statement and disputing various averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint. However, these disputed facts need not detain us inasmuch as the relevant facts for determining the controversy in the Suit, or for that matter in this appeal, stand admitted between the parties. It is an admitted case that the deceased was the owner of the Suit property. It is also an admitted fact that he died intestate. It is also admitted that the appellants and the respondents 1,2 and 4 are staying in the Suit property. The letting out of the ground floor to the two tenants is also undisputed, although appellants case is that the two tenants were inducted by the deceased during his lifetime and the appellants wanted the tenanted portion to be got vacated through the Court of law by filing eviction petition and it is the respondents who are not cooperating.