SANJEET TANEJA Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR TANEJA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prolix plaint spanning 34 pages is full of verbosity and irrelevant pleadings. The concentrate of the decoction of the pleadings would simply be that the appellant/plaintiff is the son of respondent No.1 (defendant No.1) born to him from his first wife, whom respondent No.1 had divorced. That respondent No.1 inherited a property No.A/14 -16, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, from his father and sold the same to purchase the suit properties being flat No.B -7/54/1 DDA Flats, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, and I -9, Dattaguru Co -operative Housing Society, Deonar, Mumbai -400088. As per the appellant, since the funds to acquire the suit properties were generated by selling an ancestral property, it partakes the character of an ancestral property, liable to be partitioned. As per the appellant his grand -mother was living in the flat at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and she had permitted him to reside in a room. As per the appellant, his father took his grand - mother to Mumbai for treatment where she died during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) Grievance in the appeal is to the interim order dated February 06, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing I.A. No.13556/2013 filed by the appellant and declining relief prayed by the appellant that the keys of the flat at Delhi be handed over to the appellant by respondent No.1.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has noted that vide order dated May 28, 2004, the respondent No.1 had been restrained from selling the suit properties and that in the flat in question the mother of respondent No.1, who would be the grand -mother of the appellant, was residing and she had died during the pendency of the suit on August 08, 2013.