UMA RANI SHARMA Vs. VED RARKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Uma Rani Sharma, plaintiff is the sister of defendant Ved Prakash Sharma. Shiv Ram Sharma, since deceased, was the father of the parties while Smt. Vidyawanti was the mother. Shiv Ram Sharma was the owner of leasehold property bearing House No.3, Block-12, Old Rajindra Nagar, New Delhi. Shiv Ram Sharma had died, leaving behind his widow besides the plaintiff and the defendant. The mother of the parties also died on 28/9/1989.

(2.) . It is asserted by the plaintiff that when her father died, she inherited 1/3rd share in the property and when her mother died, she became the owner of the half of the property, referred to above. In addition to that, it has been pleaded that Vidyawanti Sharma had executed a Will dated 34/9/1989, bequeathing her 1/3rd share in the property upon both the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares because it is asserted that the mother of the parties was not keeping good-health, the defendant and his wife were ill-treating her and the plaintiff had left her family and started living in Old Rajindra Nagar house to take care of her mother. When the mother of the plaintiff died the defendant is alleged to have broke opened the lock and taken possession of that portion. The present suit has been filed seeking partition of the property, bearing House No.3, Block No.12, Old Rajindra Nagar, New Delhi.

(3.) . In the written statement filed, the civil suit had been contested. It is alleged that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit because the property vests with the defendant by virtue of the will dated 30/10/1971 executed by Shiv Ram Sharma, father of the parties in favour of the defendant. It is denied that mother of the plaintiff had executed the will set up by the plaintiff. Furthermore, plea has been raised that the present suit is not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, which specifies that the partition of a dwelling house is confined to the male heirs and plaintiff could not seek partition of the same. Defendant claims that he has become the absolute owner of the property and, therefore, the suit, in any case, is not maintainable.