LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-133

SUNITA Vs. JEEVAN LAL

Decided On October 19, 2006
SUNITA Appellant
V/S
JEEVAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms.Sunita is seeking partition of property bearing No.1470, Gali No.7, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and also a restraint order against the defendants from dispossessing her from the said property or from raising any illegal or unauthorised construction on the property or from creating any third party interest in respect thereto.

(2.) The brief facts which have led to the filing of the suit are as under:- The suit property was originally purchased and constructed by late Shri Prakash Lal Kapoor out of the joint family funds. The said Shri Prakash Lal Kapoor died intestate in the year 1982 leaving behind the plaintiff, who is his grand daughter, his four sons and one daughter. The father of the plaintiff had pre-deceased his father. Three other sons of Shri Prakash Lal Kapoor, namely, Shri Vinod, Shri Ashok Kumar, and Shri Vijay Kumar had died before the filing of the suit. The present suit, therefore, has been filed against the only surviving son of Shri Prakash Lal Kapoor; the widow and children of late Shri Vinod; the widow and children of late Shri Ashok Kumar; Smt.Raj daughter of Shri Prakash Lal Kapoor and Shri Siddharth Gupta.

(3.) It is alleged in the plaint that some time in August, 2000, the defendants created such an atmosphere in the house that the plaintiff was left with no option but to shift out from the suit property in a rented accommodation at C-401, Timber Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. However, in December, 2002 and May, 2003 she approached the defendants with a request for partition of the suit property but all she got were false assurances. It is further alleged that due to unavoidable reasons the plaintiff remained out of Delhi during the period from May, 2003 up to September, 2003. During her absence the defendants had entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Shri Siddharth Gupta who demolished the suit property and raised unauthorised construction thereon. The plaintiff requested the defendants to stop the unauthorised construction but to no avail.