KEWAL KRISHAN MAYOR Vs. KAILASH CHAND MAYOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for partition of properties andhas arisen in the following circumstances.The plaintiff, Dr. Kewal Krishan Mayor, and defendant No. 1,Shri Kailash Chand Mayor, are the sons of late L. Bal Mukand whowas the son of Shri Dina Nath. The said L. Bal Mukand, besides theplaintiff and defendant No. 1, had one son named Shri Brahm Duttwho died during the life time of L. Bal Mukand. L. Bal Mukand hadtwo daughters, defendant No. 2 Smt. Brahm Wad Sood and defendantNo. 3 Smt. Raj Kumari Dhanda. Shri Brahm Dutt who died duringthe life time of L. Bal Mukand, left behind his son Shri Anil Mayor,defendant No. 4, and a daughter Smt. Neelam Sood, defendant No. 5and a widow Smt. Parkash Mayor, defendant No. 6. Smt. Lal Deviwas the wife of L. Bal Mukand and the mother of the plaintiff anddefendant No. 1 Smt. Lal Devi died on 9th of November, 1965.L. Bal Mukand died at Delhi on 27th of June, 1973.

(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint of the suit is thatL. Bal Mukand constituted a joint Hindu family wih the plaintiff anddefendant No. 1, that L. Bal Mukand in his life time attested anaffidavit dated 4th of March, 1963 and on that date threw the property known as 8/lO and 8/11, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhiinto the common hotch potch of his Hindu undivided family constituted by him and his two sons Dr. Kewal Krishan, plaintiff andKailash Chand, defendant No. 1, that on the death of L. Bal Mukand on 27th of June, 1973 on notional partition of the above-mentionedjoint Hindu family property, l/3rd undivided share in the said property was owned by the plaintiff and the remaining l/3rd undividedshare was owned by defendant No. 1, that besides the said jointHindu family properties L. Bal Mukand had immovable property onthe plot 11-A, Factory Area at Faridabad, one thousand shares inM/s. Laldee (P) Ltd and tenancy rights in two premises, that theparties to the suit are joint owners and also in joint possession of theentire property in suit, that the shares of the parties in the propertyin suit are as specified in para 13 of the plaint, and that the defendantswere requested several times to partition the property in suit accordingto the shares held by the parties but the defendants have failed todo so, hence the suit for partition of the property in suit.

(3.) The suit is being contested only by defendant No. 1- The relationship between the parties is admitted. It is, however, pleaded that thelate L. Bal Mukand constituted a joint Hindu family with defendantNo. 1 only, that the plaintiff had been separated from his father afterthe plaintiff passed his Medicine in 1945 and has always lived andmessed separately and kept his income separate, that the plaintiff hasnothing to do with the joint Hindu family consisting of late L. BalMukand and defendant No. 1, that defendant No. 1 was the onlyco-parcener in the joint: Hindu family, that the plaintiff misbehavedwith his father and mother when they came to India as poor refugeesand started from a scratch, that the declaration alleged to have beenmade on 4th of March, 1963 throwing the two properties into common hotch potch of Hindu undivided family is denied, that the plaintiffwas not a member of the joint Hindu family of late L. Bal Mukandand defendant No. 1 and did not inherit anything nor did the otherdefendants inherit any share in the estate of the deceased, that inorder to secure the entire estate to defendant No. 1 late L. BalMukand made a will on 5th of June, 1971 bequeathing all the properties to defendant No. 1 except house No. 8/10, W.E.A., KarolBagh, New Delhi which was bequeathed in favour of Miss ShashiBala, daughter of defendant No.1 for life and on her death to thetwo sons of defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiff is not entitled toclaim partition to any of the property in suit.