UMA SHARMA Vs. KAMAL KUMAR BHANOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected suits; CS (OS) No. 185/2009 is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by Uma and Shashi Sharma (first and the second plaintiff, hereafter referred to collectively as "the daughters"), both daughters of Late Rajinder Lal against their brothers (the four defendants), in respect of property bearing House No. F-3/30, Krishna Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi (hereafter "suit premises"). CS (OS) No. 337/2009 (hereafter "the partition suit") claims a decree for partition and permanent injunction; it is filed by Hemant Bhanot son of Late Rajinder Lal against his three brothers (Kamal Kumar, Upinder Kumar and Rajesh Kumar; the brothers being collectively referred to as "the brothers"). With consent of counsel for parties, the two suits were heard together, as the only issue involved was the interpretation of a Will of the late Balwant Rani (hereafter called "the testatrix")

(2.) THE daughters' suit avers that the parties father, Late Rajinder Lal was the son of the testatrix, absolute owner of the suit premises, during her lifetime. The daughters contend that after her demise (in 1989) the Late Rajinder Lal inherited it, and and upon his demise (in 2001) it devolved equally upon the children of Rajinder Lal, i.e. the parties in the two suits. It is stated that though the testatrix had two sons (Rajinder Lal and Krishna Gopal), but on account of some disputes with the other son, she executed a will favouring the branch of Rajinder Lal (hereafter, "the will"). The will was registered - with the Sub-Registrar as Document No. 250, Book No. 3, Volume 93 at pages 73-75.

(3.) THE parties claim to be in joint possession of the suit premises, however, only the fourth defendant is residing in it, as other parties own residential houses. It is stated that all the parties to this suit shared the charges with the third defendant in hope of getting their respective shares. The daughters allege that after letters of administration were issued in favour of the third defendant, they were informed by the fourth defendant that the sons do not wish to give them (the daughters) a share in the suit premises. On 11.12.2008, therefore, the daughters allege to have served a legal notice upon the sons demanding that they should not to sell or create any third party interest in the said property without their prior consent. In response to which dated 11.12.2008, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs were not the legal heirs of Rajinder Lal. The plaintiffs claim to have gained knowledge of the defendants' surreptitious plans of creating third party interest in the suit premises, therefore, they approach the Court to seek a legal remedy.