LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-39

VIKAS JAIN Vs. BRIJWASI INFRATECH PVT LTD

Decided On November 03, 2020
VIKAS JAIN Appellant
V/S
Brijwasi Infratech Pvt Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgement and decree dated 23rd October, 2019 passed in a civil suit filed by the respondent herein against the present appellant, seeking the partition of the property bearing No. 3, Block A-1, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-51, ('suit property') whereby the suit property has been valued at the rate of Rs. 3.75 lakhs/sq.yard, and the respondent has been given the right to purchase the 1/16th share of the appellant in the suit property.

(2.) The facts as are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. The suit property was originally owned by late Chunni Lal who executed sale deed dated 14th February, 1958 transferring equal shares in the suit property to Sh. Yagdev Sharma and Sh. Bhim Dev. During their lifetime, these joint purchasers further sold their respective shares in the suit property. Sh. Bhim Dev sold his 1/2 share to Sh. Suresh Chand and Sh. Tej Kumar Jain, the father of the appellant, both of whom acquired 1/4th share each in the suit property. On the death of Sh. Tej Kumar Jain, his four sons succeeded to his 1/4th share, in equal proportion. Thus, the appellant came to hold a 1/16th share in the suit property.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the respondent had on 23rd April, 2010, purchased the 1/2 share of late Yagdev Sharma and the 1/4th share of late Suresh Chand from their successors-in-interest, vide registered sale deeds. The three brothers of the appellant sold their 3/4th share out of the 1/4th share of late Tej Kumar Jain in the suit property to the respondent vide a registered sale deed executed on 29th October, 2010. Thus, admittedly it owns the entire suit property save for the extent of 1/16th share of the appellant in it. On the strength of these sale deeds the respondent filed a suit for partition. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 18th April, 2017 to the effect that the respondent was the owner of the suit property to the extent of 15/16th share and the appellant was owner with 1/16th share.