SEEMA Vs. SURENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LATE Shri Chinga Ram, grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, was the owner/allottee of property No.21, comprised in Khasra No.125, Jangpura, New Delhi measuring about 133 sq. yds. He was also in possession of property No.154/1, back portion, Masjid Lane, Jangpura, Bhogal admeasuring 85 sq. yds. belonging to DDA. Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Shri Chinga Ram died on May, 9, 1970 leaving behind two sons, namely, Khem Chand and Dal Chand and one daughter Smt.Lakmiri. The daughter of Shri Chinga Ram relinquished her share in his properties in favour of her brothers. Accordingly, Dal Chand and Khem Chand became owner of 1/2 each of the aforesaid properties which, they mutually decided between them. In his life time, Late Shri Dal Chand had executed a registered Will in respect of the aforesaid properties bequeathing them to his wife Smt.Kalawati. After the death of Dal Chand and Kalawati, their estate devoid upon the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the ratio of 1/5th each. The plaintiffs filed this suit seeking partition of the above referred two properties and also sought accounts of the movable properties which were left by their parents and were stated to be in possession of defendant No.1. They also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the aforesaid properties and from raising any construction on it.

(2.) IN their written statements, the defendants did not dispute the averments made in the plaint with respect to title of the aforesaid properties as also with respect to the shares of the parties in the same. They stated that defendant No.1 had no objection to the partition of the suit property in equal shares. It was further stated that defendant No.1 has no objection to the sale of the property falling to the share of the plaintiffs though he had objection to the sale of his own share.

(3.) THE Local Commissioner submitted a report stating therein that the suit properties cannot be physically divided and suggested appointment of a Valuer and filed the same in the Court. The plaintiff obtained report from an approved valuer and filed the same in the Court.