ANIL KUMAR BANSAL Vs. SHANTI DEVI BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No.11807/2008 Heard counsel for the parties. This order will dispose of I.A. No.11807/2008 preferred by the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 8, seeking rejection of the claim in the suit so far as it pertains to two items of properties i.e., 29, Rama Park, Kishan Ganj, Delhi - 110 007 (hearafter referred to as Rama Park property) and 9361, Gaushala Road, Kishan Ganj, Delhi - 110 006 (hereafter referred to as Gaushala Road property). The plaintiff alleges, in the suit, that these are HUF properties and seeks partition.

(2.) The averments contained, inter alia, in the written statement are that there is no HUF and that in any case there are no properties belonging to any HUF. It is further alleged that there is no documentary evidence to support the argument that the properties in question ever belonged to any HUF. By the present application, the defendants/applicants submit that there are sufficient materials which constitute admission as to entitle the Court to pass appropriate orders excluding the said two properties from adjudication in the present proceedings.

(3.) As far as the first property, i.e., Rama Park property is concerned, it is stated that the same was purchased by Shri Kanwar Lal Bansal by a registered sale deed dated 7.12.1983 with his funds; emphasis is placed here on paragraph-10 of the suit. It is submitted that the property was bequeathed to different persons including the plaintiff, by the three Wills dated 17.1.1994. The Applicants submit that the plaintiff does not dispute the existence of the Wills or the bequests. This, says the applicants, amount to an admission, which the plaintiff is barely able to get over with the explanation that a Relinquishment deed (executed by him in 2000) was "managed" or procured from him and that the amount of Rs.1,32,300/- received in this regard was returned in cash. In addition, it is further submitted that the plaintiff was arrayed as defendant in another proceeding - Suit No.176/2005. In that case, the execution of the Wills was not disputed. These, say the defendants/applicants, amounts to admission disentitling the plaintiff to contend that they were ever part of the HUF as they amount to concessions that the late father Shri Kanwar Lal Bansal had purchased the property and thereafter bequeathed, inter alia, to the plaintiff.