SURAJ BHAN ARYA Vs. POORAN CHAND ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A family litigation was commenced by the plaintiff Sh. Suraj Bhan Arya, for Partition, Declaration and Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against his three brothers Sh. Pooran Chand Arya, Sh. Kishan Singh Arya, Sh. Lakhan Singh Arya, sister Smt. Murti Devi and mother Smt. Ramkali who are the defendants in respect of house bearing no. 18, Masihgarh, New Delhi-110025 constructed on a plot of 600 sq. yards of which the father Late Sh. Kishan Lal was the exclusive owner and in possession.

(2.) The plaintiff and the defendants were married and happily living together with their respective families. The case of the plaintiff is that in the year 1995, plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 3 by mutual agreement had occupied one portion each of the property in question without their being any actual and final division of the property. By virtue of this Arrangement, defendant no. 4 sister and defendant no. 5 mother did not get the possession of any part of the property, though as per the law of inheritance and succession, they were entitled to a share in the property being Class I legal heirs. Shri Kishan Lal during his lifetime had constructed two shops, in addition to the four shops that already existed on the outer side of the house for an additional income. The plaintiff and the three defendants kept one shop each. Two shops were retained by late Sh. Kishan Lal for his own sustenance and survival, which were later bequeathed by late Sh. Kishan Lal to his grandson, Khushal Singh Arya, son of the plaintiff as he was taking care of late Sh. Kishan Lal and defendant no. 5 during their lifetime. The plaintiff has asserted that defendant no. 5, the mother, lived with Sh. Khushal Arya, son of the plaintiff all through her life.

(3.) It is further asserted that as per the Family Arrangement, the gali which was 6 feet wide and about 80 feet in length which connected to the main road, had the main gates of the portions of plaintiff and defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4, opening in it for free ingress and egress. The defendant no. 1 had gotten more area in his share, and thus agreed not to use the gali and had a separate entry to his portion. The plaintiff demolished his shop in order to get more access to the main road, and to have sufficient parking for the ground floor.