SUNIL KUMAR KAPUR Vs. ANIL KUMAR KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of an application, I.A. No. 6229/2010 by the fourth Defendant under Section 151 CPC, seeking for the recall of an order dated 12.10.2007, recording a compromise sought for in I.A. Nos. 4286/2007 and 4287/2007.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the suit are that the Plaintiff (hereafter referred to as "Sh. Sunil Kapur") had claimed partition of two properties, being S-395, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the G.K. property") and 6/92, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the W.E.A. property"). According to the suit averments, Sh. Sikander Lall Kapur was the father of the Plaintiff, Sh. Sunil Kapur, and all the Defendants; the Plaintiff and first, second, fourth and sixth Defendants are the sons of late Sh. Sikander Lall Kapur, whereas the third, fifth and seventh Defendants are his daughters. The Plaintiff claimed that Sh. Sikander Lall Kapur died into state on 13.03.1994, leaving behind two assets, the partition of which was sought in the proceeding. The suit also averred that the G.K. property was purchased in 1987 by late Sh. Sikander Lall Kapur and that similarly the W.E.A. property was his self-acquired property. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff, Sh. Sunil Kapur had sought division of the suit properties, claiming one-eighth share.

(3.) The first Defendant, Sh. Anil Kapur denied the suit averments, alleging that late Sh. Sikander Lall Kapur had left behind a registered Will dated 23.06.1992, bequeathing all his moveable and immoveable property to him, i.e. Sh. Anil Kapur. According to the averments in the written statement, late Sh. Sikander Lall Kapur had originally settled in Calcutta, and shifted to Delhi in 1965 when he was working in M/s. Napco Bevel Gear of India Ltd; Sh. Anil Kapur alleges that he shifted and started living with his father in 1967 and ever since he was assisting Sh. Sikander Lall Kapur in managing the company. Sh. Anil Kapur alleges that the second Defendant was independently engaged in conducting furniture business and that the fourth Defendant (the applicant) was living separately in Noida and having his own business of export of chemicals. The sixth Defendant, it was alleged, was married and was living in Calcutta; he was engaged in tarpaulin manufacturing and saree business.