SURINDER MALIK Vs. ASHA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 12.7.2010 which has decreed the suit for partition filed by the respondent/plaintiff/daughter against the appellant/defendant/brother.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that father/Sh. Inder Kishan Malik owned a property namely the residential house at F -52, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. The father admittedly died intestate. Sh. Inder Kishan Malik on his death left behind four legal heirs, i.e. his widow/Smt. Raj Malik, two daughters/Smt. Santosh Malik and Smt. Asha Verma/plaintiff and one son/Sh. Surinder Malik/defendant. Smt. Santosh Malik, the daughter was working in NAFED, a Government of India Undertaking, and she too acquired ownership of the property bearing No.JG -III/177 -C, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. Smt. Santosh Malik did not marry and she also died intestate.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant/defendant, it was pleaded in the Trial Court that there was a family settlement as per which the respondent/plaintiff had got various amounts, and whereby the respondent/plaintiff is stated to have relinquished her share in both the properties in favour of the appellant/defendant. Admittedly, this alleged family settlement is not a documented fact. Neither any written family settlement was filed on record by the appellant/defendant nor was any other document filed to show that such a settlement ever took place between the parties. Accordingly, the Trial Court decided this relevant issue no.1 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by observing as under and with which findings I agree: