RAJEEV CHAWLA Vs. DEEPAK CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition of a property, namely, E-64, Greater Kailash, Enclave-I, New Delhi-110048 [hereinafter, "E-64"], which he claims is jointly held by the two parties. The defendant has filed this application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"], seeking impleadment of the parents of the parties.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that E-64 was purchased jointly in the names of the plaintiff, the defendant and their father [Sh. Surinder Kumar Chawla], and subsequently, the father of the parties transferred his 1/3rd share to the plaintiff by way of a registered gift deed dated 11.06.2010. The plaintiff thus claims 2/3rd share in E-64 and states that the defendant has 1/3rd share therein. An amendment of the plaint [which is not material for the present application] was permitted by an order dated 21.01.2015, following which the defendant filed an amended written statement, affirmed on 10.03.2015. The defendant pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff and the defendant were part of a joint Hindu Undivided Family ["HUF"] and that the suit property was purchased from the funds of the joint family. He also asserted that joint family funds were used to purchase two other properties - Shop No.152, Bhagat Singh Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi [hereinafter, "Shop No.152"] and Shop No.F-71, Bhagat Singh Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi [hereinafter, "Shop No.F-71"]. It is undisputed that Shop No.152 is registered in the name of the plaintiff and Shop No.F-71 in the name of the mother of the parties. The defendant contended in the written statement that the partition suit was thus for partial partition of the joint family properties, which is not permissible under law.

(3.) The contention of the defendant to this effect is set out in paragraph 6 of the amended written statement, which is reproduced below: