BALRAJ TANEJA Vs. RAJINDER LAL TANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for partition of property No. 9-B, Mathura Road, Jangpura, New Delhi as also for injunction. Defendants No.1 and 2 are the brothers of the plaintiff, defendant No.3 is his sister-in-law being the widow of his brother late Sh. Ashwani Kumar Taneja whereas defendants No.4 and 5 are children of late Sh. Ashwani Kumar Taneja. It is an admitted case that late Sh. Raghu Nath Rai was the owner of property No. 9-B, Mathura Road, Jangpura, New Delhi. Though it was alleged in para 2 of the plaint that the suit property is in effect a joint family property and has been referred to and registered as HUF property, it was expressly stated by the plaintiff's vide their statement dated January 11, 2011 that this was the self acquired property of late Sh. Raghu Nath Rai and no other person or entity had any right, title and interest therein.

(2.) IT is further alleged in the plaint that a settlement was reached in the lifetime of late Sh. Raghu Nath Rai, whereby various portions of the suit property were allocated to him and his sons. The case of the plaintiff is that the family settlement, which was reduced into writing vide Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 26 th June 1996 with a site plan attached to it, can at best be regarded as a living arrangement, not bestowing any ownership rights on anyone. Under the MOU, it was agreed that none of the parties shall sell, transfer or otherwise alienate any part or whole of the portion in his occupation to any outsider or create any third part right into it. IT is also stated that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 are in actual physical possession of the suit property as per the portions earmarked for them in the MOU dated 26th June 1996 and the site plan attached thereto. Regarding Garage Block of the property, it is claimed that the same having been given independently to the son and wife of the plaintiff, does not form a part of the joint family property. IT is further alleged that defendant No.2 has authorized defendant No.1 to sell the portion occupied by him and defendant No.1 has accepted an advance of Rs.50Lacs for the sale of his portion of the property to a third party. The plaintiff has accordingly sought a decree for partition of property No. 9- B, Mathura Road, Jangpura, New Delhi and has also sought injunction, restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating or parting with possession of any of the portion of the property. IA No. 2208/2006 has been filed by the plaintiff along with the suit, seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating or parting with possession of the suit property or any part thereof during pendency of the suit.

(3.) IN their statement recorded on January 11, 2011, the plaintiffs, after seeing the Will dated 21 st May 1996, which the defendants have filed in this case, admitted its genuineness as well as validity and stated that they were not disputing the same. Since the plaintiffs have also admitted that property No.9-B, Mathura Road, New Delhi was the self acquired property of late Sh. Raghu Nath Rai and no other person or entity had any right, title and interest in it, the property, on the death of late Sh. Raghu Nath Rai, devolved in terms of the bequest made by the deceased. IN fact there is no difference in the arrangement incorporated in the MOU dated 26th June 1996 and disposition of the property under the Will dated 21st May 1996 except to the extent that the Will contains no restriction on the right of the legatees to deal with their respective portions, in the manner they desire.