ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. SHRI VISHAL SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT suit has been filed for partition of the plot No. 93, in the National Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd. popularly known as Ram Vihar, Delhi ­ 110092 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). The admitted position is that on 29th January, 1988 three brothers, namely, plaintiff, defendant no. 3 and Mr. Vipin Kumar Shukla purchased the suit property. Thereafter a three storied property comprising ground, first and second floors as well as terrace was constructed on the suit property.

(2.) ALL the three brothers occupied the three different floors. While the first floor was occupied by defendant no. 3, second floor as well as terrace was occupied by the plaintiff. Initially the ground floor was in possession of Mr. Vipin Kumar Shukla but after his death, his legal heirs sold their shares in the suit property (that means ground floor) to defendant no. 6 who in turn sold it to defendant no. 7. Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that during the lifetime of Mr. Vipin Kumar Shukla a deemed partition took place between the three brothers according to which the three brothers were entitled to peaceful use and occupation of the part of the suit property in their possession. He further states that the present suit has been filed as the plaintiff apprehends that the new purchaser may dispute the understanding between the three brothers.

(3.) IT is pertinent to mention that neither the share of the parties nor the possession of respective shares of the parties is disputed. In fact, partition by metes and bounds is not required in the present case as all the three contesting parties are not claiming any further share in the suit property than what is in their possession. Consequently, this Court passes a final decree of partition decreeing the plaintiff to be the owner and in possession of second floor as well as terrace. Similarly, the defendant no. 3 is decreed to be the owner and in possession of first floor; whereas defendant no. 7 is decreed to be the owner and in possession of ground floor. However, as the application for conversion of the suit property is admittedly pending consideration before the statutory authority, it is further decreed that the plaintiff, defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 7 hold one-third undivided share in the land underneath the suit property. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.