CHELA RAM CHOPRA Vs. RAMO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal heirs of one of the defendants in a suit for partition in respect of property no. J-369, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the `suit property') had filed this appeal challenging the judgment and preliminary decree of partition passed in the suit by the Court of Additional District Judge holding the respondent no.1- plaintiff Smt. Ramo Devi and her husband's two brothers to be the owners of the suit property in equal shares.

(2.) The suit for partition and separation of 1/3rd share in the suit property was filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff Smt. Ramo Devi against her two brothers-in-law (husband's brothers) Shri Chela Ram Chopra and Shri Shiv Kumar Chopra. It was claimed by Smt. Ramo Devi that the suit property was initially a Government built quarter and the same was allotted to her father-in-law late Shri Manohar Lal Chopra on lease-hold basis by the Government of India in the year 1950 on his migration to Delhi from Peshawar(now in Pakistan) after partition of the country. Shri Manohar Lal Chopra died intestate in the year 1955 leaving behind three sons, namely, Shri Chela Ram, Shri Shiv Kumar and her husband late Shri Roshan Lal Chopra and three daughters,namely. Krishna, Lalli and Urmil. It was further claimed by Smt. Ramo Devi that the three sisters had surrendered their rights in favour of their brothers by giving affidavits to that effect in the Estate Office and the suit property was then transferred in the names of the three brothers on 17th August, 1963. She further pleaded that after the death of her husband her name was substituted in the Government records as a co-owner of the suit property since her two children(who are respondents no.2 and 3 in this appeal) had surrendered their right in the suit property in her favour. The filing of suit for partition had been necessitated because of the refusal of her brother-in-law Shri Chela Ram(who was defendant no.1 in the suit and reference to him shall now be made as `the deceased defendant no.1' since he had died during the pendency of the suit) to give her share in the suit property after the death of her husband.

(3.) Defendant no.2 in the suit was Shri Sushil Kumar Chopra, the other brother-in-law of the plaintiff Smt. Ramo Devi. However, before he could be served with the summons of the suit the plaintiff informed the Court that he had died and she also moved an application for bringing on record his two daughters being his only legal representatives. Before that application could be considered Smt. Ramo Devi moved another application for impleading the two daughters and the widow of Sh. Shiv Kumar Chopra as plaintiffs since they were also claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property. That application was allowed by the trial Court and two minor daughters of Shri Shiv Kumar Chopra and Mrs.Kamlesh Chopra were then brought on record as plaintiffs no. 2 to 4.