LAWS(DLH)-1996-1-113

S PRITPAL SINGH Vs. KULDEEP KAUR

Decided On January 01, 1996
S.PRITPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
KULDEEP KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit for partition of the immoveable property bearing H.No. V/7479, Tel Mill Lane, Ram Nagar, Delhi, the say of the plaintiff is that late S. Charan Singh, the father of the plaintiffs (through 1stwife) and defendants No. 2 to 7 (through defendant No.l, the second wife), and husband of defendant No.1 died intestate on 16.5.1977 leaving behind plaintiffs and defendant No.l to 7 as his heirs; that deceased late S. Charan Singh left the suit property; that the property is at present in possession of defendants 1 to 4; that plaintiff No.2 shifted from the suit property as also defendants 4 & 5 and defendant No. 6 & 7 to their respective matrimonial homes; that defendants 3 & 4 who are in actual control of the suit house along with defendant No.l have refused to partition the suit property and give the share to the co-owners including the plaintiffs and that defendants 3 & 4 are planning to dispose of their undivided share and hand over the built up portion of the suit property to the buyer.

(2.) The say of the defendant is that defendant No.l, the mother, defendant No.6; and 7 out of love and affection relinquished their l/9th share each in favour of defendant No.3 vide registered relinquishment deed dated 19.9.88 and therefore defendant No.3 became the owner of 4/9th share in the suit property; that defendant No.5 vide registered relinquishment deed dated 19.9.88, relinquished her l/9th share in favour of defendant No.4 who became the owner of 2/9th share in the suit property; that in the year 1990, the suit property left by deceased late S. Charan Singh was duly partitioned between the parties, i.e. the plaintiffs and the defendants with the consent of the plaintiffs; that after the said partition defendant, defendant No.4sold his 2/9tli share to one Shri Mohinder Singh on or about 11.8.90 within the knowledge of the plaintiff; that in the month of May 1990, the plaintiffs have also been given their share of 13.5 sq.yds. each in the suit property; that the plaintiffs also relinquished their share in favour of defendant No.3 in consideration whereof plaintiff No.2 received Rs.43,600.00 spreading over various dates between 22.5.90 to 1.6.90; that both the plaintiffs also relinquished their respective share in favour of defendant No.3 on 17.5.90 and the plaintiffs also executed a Special Power of attorney in favour of defendant No.3 on 16.5.90 and therefore the plaintiffs, after receiving the full consideration amount from defendant -No.3 have no right, title or interest in the suit propertyand the property has also been given possession to defendant No.3 and he is the owner of the suit property.

(3.) It will be seen from the pleadings that it is not in dispute that late S. Charan Singh, father of plaintiffs 1 & 2 and defendants 2 to 7 and husband of defendant No. 1 died intestate on 16.5.77 leaving the suit property. It is also not in dispute that plaintiffs and the defendants, as heirs of deceased late S. Charan Singh, inherritted the disputed property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is not partitioned and that each plaintiff has undivided share therein whereas according to the defendants, Dependant No. 1, 5, 6 and 7 respectively relinquished their share in favour of defendant No.4 and 3 respectively and defendant No.4, thereafter, sold his 2/9th share and that the suit property is partitioned with the consent of the plaintiff in May 1990 and that after partition, the plaintiffs relinquished their shares, in favour of defendant No.3 and received the consideration for the relinquishing their l/9th each share.