RAM KANT CHATURVEDI Vs. MITHLESH CHANDRA CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit filed by the plaintiff is for partition and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the sons and defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of late Sh.Jagdish Prasad Chaturvedi(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased father'). Defendants 4 and 5 are also impleaded who are wife and son respectively of defendant No.1. Put simply, the deceased father had two sons, namely, plaintiff and defendant No.1 and two daughters, namely, defendants 2 and 3. The deceased father of the parties was possessed of a House No.11-A/16, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (for short 'Karol Bagh house') apart from certain movable properties. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff, it is stated that after the death of his father , the plaintiff is in possession of the ground floor and defendant No.1 is in possession of the first floor of the Karol Bagh house. Entire movable properties including Fixed Deposit Receipts, cash, gold and gold ornaments, share certificates and all other movable properties are taken over by defendant No.1, being elder brother of the plaintiff. 'The plaintiff had requested defendant No.1 to partition the properties left by their deceased father but defendant No.1 kept on avoiding. As defendants 2 and 3 did not claim any share in these properties of their late father, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have equal share in, the properties left by the deceased. It is further averred in the plaint, that on being pressed by the plaintiff and on persuasion of the relatives, the defendant No.1 had agreed to refer the question of partition of the properties by their deceased father to mediation of Sh.K.1.Parashar, Sh.Dwarka Dass Arora and Sh.Bimal Kishore Mishra. Before the mediators, the defendant No.1 admitted the following properties having been left by their deceased father:

(2.) It may be mentioned that initially only defendants 1 to 3 were made parties and summons were issued to them. The defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement wherein it was mentioned that their deceased father did not die-intestate but had executed a will dated 18/10/1976 as per which he bequeathed his properties to defendants 4 and 5. At this stage the defendant No.4 moved an application for impleadment of defendants 4 and 5,her minor son, on, the ground that they were beneficiaries under the will. This application was allowed.

(3.) Written Statements were thereafter filed on behalf of defendants 4 and 5 contesting the suit on the basis of will dated 18/10/1976. Defendant No.2, sister of plaintiff and defendant No.1 filed written statement wherein she has admitted the execution of the will and has stressed that properties they had administered and distributed among the legatees according to the terms of the said will.