BHARAT KUMAR Vs. ASHOK SAHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment adjudicates the objections of the defendants in the suit and respondents in the testamentary case as to the very maintainability thereof.

(2.) The plaintiff Shri Bharat Kumar has instituted CS(OS) No.1517/2010, (a) for partition of property No.92, Golf Links, New Delhi; (b) for rendition of accounts with respect to the rental received by the defendants no.1&2 from the said house w.e.f. 17th January, 2008; (c) for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants no.1&2 from dealing with the property; and, (d) for a direction to the defendant no.5 McKinsey & Company to handover vacant peaceful physical possession of the said property upon termination of its lease, jointly to the plaintiff and the defendants no.1&2.

(3.) Summons of the suit were issued and vide ex parte ad interim order dated 28th July, 2010 the defendants were restrained from creating any third party interest in the property No.92, Golf Links, New Delhi. Separate written statements were filed by the defendants no.1&2 on the one hand and the defendants no.3&4 on the other hand. The counsel for the defendant no.5 McKinsey & Company on 19th November, 2010 informed that it was a tenant in the said property and had vacated the same and handed over possession to the defendants no.1&2 landlords; accordingly the name of McKinsey & Company as defendant no.5 was deleted; the defendants no.1 to 4, vide the same order, were permitted to negotiate with the prospective tenants in the property. Vide subsequent order dated 25th January, 2011 the defendants no.1&2 were permitted to let out the property to any tenant of their choice subject to furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs.5 crores and further subject to deposit of 1/8th of the rent in the Court. The defendants no.1 to 4 preferred FAO (OS) No.115-116/2011 and vide order dated 16th March, 2011 wherein the property was permitted to be let out to the Norwegian Embassy with 1/4th of the rent being deposited in the Court. The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint, to claim share of 1/4th instead of 1/8th as originally claimed in the property on account of the stand of the defendants no.3&4 in the written statement filed by them and which amendment was allowed vide order dated 21st February, 2012. The defendants have filed IA No.6254/2012 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC challenging the very maintainability of the suit. The counsels have been heard.