VINDHYA KUKRETY Vs. SHUSHMA KUKRETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IAS No.12826/2011 and 12827/2011 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. IAs No. 12824/2011 and 18104/2011 (O. 39 R. 1&2 CPC) and 12825/2011 and 18102/2011 (O. 40 for appointment of receiver)

(2.) THE plaintiff is the mother-in-law of defendant No. 1 and grandmother of defendant No. 2. Primarily, the dispute between the parties is in respect of Flat No. 43, Karuna Vihar, Sector-18, Dwarka and G-324, Gama-II, Greater Noida. As far as Flat No. 43, Karuna Vihar, Sector-18, Dwarka is concerned, admittedly, the case of the plaintiff is that it was owned exclusively by late Shri Rakesh Kukrety, son of the plaintiff, husband of defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No. 2. The learned counsel for the defendants states that, in fact, the aforesaid property was in the joint name of late Rakesh Kukrety and defendant No. 1, which is disputed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, who maintains that the property stood in the sole name of Rakesh Kukrety. A perusal of the demand letter dated 02.01.2011 filed by the defendant would show that the demand was raised only in the name of Late Shri Rakesh Kukrety, who was the member of Karuna Vihar, CGHS. This would indicate that the property was allotted by the society solely to Shri Rakesh Kukrety. However, the loan from ICICI was obtained jointly by Rakesh Kukrety and Sushma Kukrety which would indicate that either the property was owned solely by Shri Rakesh Kukrety and Ms Sushma Kukrety was only a joint applicant with him in taking loan or that the name of Sushma Kukrety was got added by Rakesh Kukrety as a co-allottee. Be that as it may, it would make no difference as far as the interim order is concerned since in either case, the property would not belong solely to the defendants and the plaintiff would have a share in it. If the property was owned solely by late Shri Rakesh Kukrety, the share of the plaintiff in the property would be one-third, whereas in the event of this property being jointly owned by Rakesh Kukrety and Sushma Kukrety in equal shares, the share of the plaintiff in the said property would be one-sixth. The parties have agreed after arguments that they shall not create any third party interest in the aforesaid property, during pendency of the suit. Ordered accordingly.

(3.) AS regards the property at Greater Noida, admittedly, this property stands in the name of plaintiff Smt. Vidhya Kukrety. The case of the defendants is that the aforesaid property was purchased in name of the plaintiff from the funds of the family. In the counter-claim, the defendants do not plead existence of any particular HUF. The counter-claim does not specify as to when, in what manner, and how much amount was contributed by the alleged joint family for purchase of this property. At this stage, there is no material on record to show that either defendant No.1 or her husband had made any contribution towards purchase of the property at Greater Noida. The counter-claim does not specify, when, in what manner and how much contribution was made by defendant No. 1 or her late husband for purchase of this property. The property stands in the sole name of the plaintiff. In the absence of there being any proof, contribution from defendant No. 1 or her late husband, there is no justification for passing any restraint order in relation to the said property.