HAKIKAT RAJ BAJAJ Vs. ROHIT BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of partition in respect of industrial property bearing No. B-26, admeasuring 602 sq. yds., situated at Rewari Line Industrial Area (popularly known as Mayapuri Industrial Area), Maya Puri, Phase -1, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property').

(2.) The plaintiff is the son of late Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj and the defendant is the son of late Ramesh Kumar Bajaj, the grandson of late Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property was initially allotted in the name of the plaintiff by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA') vide perpetual lease deed dtd. 22/11/1971. The possession of the said property was also handed over to the plaintiff by the DDA. The construction over the said property was raised after getting the plan sanctioned from the competent authority. It is averred in the suit that the plaintiff executed a registered Gift Deed dtd. 18/10/1976 by virtue of which the plaintiff transferred 1/3rd share of the suit property in favour of his father Shri Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj and another 1/3rd share in favour of his brother Shri Ramesh Kumar Bajaj. The plaintiff remained the owner of the remaining 1/3rd share of the suit property. It is further averred that Shri Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj expired on 12/8/2001 and that during his lifetime Shri Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj had executed a Will dtd. 6/8/1994 which was registered on 25/8/1994 with the office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi. Vide the said Will, Shri Gurbaksh Rai Bajaj bequeathed his 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff is stated to have become the owner of the 2/3rd share of the suit property whereas the remaining 1/3rd share of the property remained with Shri Ramesh Kumar Bajaj. Both the plaintiff and the defendant admit the Will dtd. 6/8/1994.

(3.) The present application has been filed by Sh. Kewal Krishan Bajaj, brother of the plaintiff, on the basis of the assertion that the father of the applicant, who admittedly had 1/3rd share in the suit property during his lifetime, transferred 1/4th share in the property (i.e., 3/4th of 1/3rd) in his favour. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on a registered indemnity bond dtd. 11/6/1986 in respect of transfer of the said 1/4th share.