GAJINDER PAL SINGH Vs. MEHTAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unsuccessful plaintiff's appeal directed against the dismissal of his partition suit by a judgment and decree - of 9th July, 2012 - of a learned single judge of this Court in CS (OS) 374/1993. The suit had sought partition of two immovable properties, viz., B-13, Nizamuddin East (a 200 sq. yard plot with a two storeyed super-structure) and B- 22, East of Kailash, New Delhi (a 211 sq. yards plot along with two and a half storeyed super-structure). The said properties are hereafter collectively referred to as "suit properties" and individually, as "Nizamuddin plot" and "East of Kailash plot".

(2.) Prof. Parman Singh, a "displaced person" from Pakistan, came to India leaving behind considerable Joint Hindu family immovable properties.

(3.) The plaintiff also alleged that in 1960 Parman Singh applied to the MCD for sanction to construct on the plot; he used to rent that property and had received rent. With those amounts, he built additional floors on the property. After his demise in 1975, his widow, Smt. Balwant Kaur continued to stay in those premises and receive rents which used to be deposited in a bank account jointly held with the first defendant. All HUF moneys were allegedly handled by the first defendant. The second defendant Hari Singh (brother of the first defendant) left India sometime in the late sixties and never returned to India thereafter. It was also alleged that by using the Nizamuddin rentals, the first defendant purchased the East of Kailash plot. Thus, the nucleus for payment of consideration of that property came out of HUF funds. The plaintiff resides on the ground floor, the third defendant resides on the first floor and the first defendant with his wife (i.e the plaintiff's mother, fifth defendant) resides in one bed room on the ground floor of the said house. The fourth defendant resides in the ground floor of Nizamuddin house. The first floor of the Nizamuddin house is let out on rent for the last many years. On the strength of these allegations, the plaintiff claimed 1/10th share in both the said alleged HUF properties. The first two defendants are entitled to one-half share each in the said properties, and the third, fourth and fifth defendants are entitled to 1/10th share each, i.e., as much as that of the plaintiff. In the event the second defendant does not claim any share, the other parties are entitled to 1/5th share each of the aforesaid properties. Apart from his share of the immovable properties, the plaintiff claimed rendition of accounts kept by the first defendant assessed as Rs. 60,000/-.