CHIRANJILAL Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit seeking partition of property No. B-4/72, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, for separating the half share of the plaintiffs by metes and bounds.

(2.) Plaintiff No. I is the father of defendants 1 & 3 while plaintiff No. 2 is the second wife of plaintiff No: I while defendants 1 & 3 were born from the first wife of plaintiff No. 1. Defendant No 2 is the wife of defendant No. I Plot No. 72 Block No. B-4 of Safdarjung Residential Scheme measuring 397.7 Sq. Yards was acquired by way of perpetual lease from the President of India in the names of plaintiff No. 2, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3. The possession was obtained in the year 1968. Lease deed was executed on February 21, 1971. The plot was acquired for a consideration of Rs.54,200.00 . It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No 1 is the real owner of half share in the said lease hold rights of the plot and he has acquired that share Bunami in the name of his wife plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiff No. 1, in fact, is assessed with regard to his income on the value of the abovesaid plot and the building constructed over there in the income tax and wealth tax department. It is pleaded that plaintiff No. I has contributed a sum of Rs. 40,660.00 in the payment of the premium of the said plot including the expenses incurred on the stamp and the registration charges of the lease deed. It is averred that defendant No. I has contributed Rs. 7,550.00 in the payment of the premium of the said plot and he is owner of one-fourth share in the said plot which he acquired Benami in the name of his wile defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1 as similarly assessed to the income-lax and wealth tax with respect to the said one-fourth share. Defendant No. 3 is stated to be owner of one-fourth share and he having contributed Rs. 10,000.00 in the premium pertaining to the said plot and is also assessed similarly in the income- tax and wealth tax department. The one and a half storey building is stated to have been constructed on the said plot in the year 1972-74 According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No, 1 had contributed a sum of Rs 60,000 in the construction of the building whereas defendant No. 1 contributed a sum of Rs. 15,600.00 and defendant No. 3 bad contributed a sum of Rs. 11,970.00 . It is mentioned that in the income-tax and wealth-tax department plaintiff No. l is assessed on one-half share of the said building where defendants l & 3 are assessed to the tune of ore fourth share each in the said building. Plaintiffs and defendants are stated to be in possession of ihe abovesaid properly and have been paying lease money and house-tax according to their respectivs shares.

(3.) Defendants 1 & 2. in their joint written statement pleaded that defendant No. I had worked with plaintiff No. 1, his father, since the year 1948 and was actively involved in running a Kiryana shop of his father and defendant No. I used to live and sleep at the shop itself and this shop was originally located in Khanna Market and there has been no accounting between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. I regarding the earnings from the said shop even after defendant No. I had attained the age of majority. It is pleaded that the entire earnings from the Kiryana shop were due to the result of joint efforts and plaintiff No. I being the father had kept the accounts in the manner as it pleased him. It was controverted that the plaintiff had contributed a sum of Rs.40,660.00 towards the premium of the plot. It is pleaded that in fact, the premium of the plot was paid from the joint income of plaintiff No. I and defendant No. I from the Kiryana shopv and some money had been contributed by defendant No. 2 from her own savings derived from her own income as a teacher. It was controverted that defendant No. 2 is a Benami and it is pleaded that she had contributed some money from her own savings towards the premium of the plot. It is then pleaded that the joint accounts were kept by plaintiff No. I and plaintiff No. I appeared to have juggled the account to suit his convenience and the returns of income-tax had been filed at the behest of plaintiff No. I by defendant No. 1. It is further averred that defendant No. 3 used to work at another shop and had contributed squally to the earnings of the family and for the sake of his own convenience, plaintiff No I had got executed a partnership deed between defendant No. I and defendant No. 3 with respect to the shop of R K Puram but the profits from the said shop were as well controlled by plaintiff No. I who was managing the finance of the entire family. So, it is pleaded by defendants 1 & 2 that in fact. the funds for consiructing the one and a half storey building bad come out of the joint funds which were being controlled by plaintiff No. I who was Katra of the family. They have controverted that defendant No. I is the owner of only one-fourth share and similarly defendant No. 3 is the owner of only one-fourth share. It is denied that plaintiff No. 1 had contributed a sum of Rs. 69,035.00 and defendant No. 1 had contributed a sum of Rs. 15,600/. and defendant No. 3 had contributed Rs. 11,970.00 in the construction of the building. It is pleaded that the amount of moneys which were shown in the various returns were filed with the inc me.tax department for the sake of convenience of plaintiff No. 1. So, it is pleaded that in fact, defendant No. I, plaintiff and defendant No. 3 have equal share in the property in question whereas defendant No. 2 is the owner to the extent of her respective contribution therein, It is pleaded that the property in question could not be partitioned by metes and bounds particularly when the same is a leasehold property. Defendants 1 & 2 have also set up a counter-claim for rendition of accounts against plaintiff No. I and to have a decree for the money which may be found due, on the plaintiff No. I rendering the accounts of the money received by him in respect of the business being run at the shops at R,K Puram and Lodi Colony.