LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-7

GUDDI DEVI & ORS. Vs. NEELAM DEVAL

Decided On April 11, 2017
Guddi Devi And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Neelam Deval Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/defendants are aggrieved by the judgment on admissions pronounced by the learned trial court on an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 12, Rule 6 Civil P.C. in a suit for partition of a residential premises.

(2.) The facts narrated by the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint are that the subject premises was originally owned by her mother, Smt. Sheela Devi, the first wife of Shri Sant Ram, who died intestate in the year 1983, leaving behind two legal heirs, namely, the respondent/plaintiff and her father, Shri Sant Ram. Later on, Shri Sant Ram got married to the appellant No.1 and from out of the said wedlock, they had five children (appellants No.2 to 6 herein), who are the step brother/sisters of the respondent/plaintiffs. Shri Sant Ram died intestate on 16.5.2014, and on his demise, the respondent/plaintiff claims entitlement to 8/14th share in the suit premises, as against the appellants No.1 to 6/defendants, who as per her, are entitled to 1/14th share each in the suit premises. Stating that when the respondent/plaintiff had approached the appellants/defendants demanding her share in the suit premises and was refused, she had to institute the present partition suit in Oct., 2014.

(3.) After service was effected on all the appellants/defendants, they filed a joint written statement and pleaded inter alia that though Shri Sant Ram had purchased the suit premises in the name of his wife, Smt. Sheela Devi, the same was bought from his own funds. During her lifetime, Smt. Sheela Devi had executed documents transferring the suit premises in favour of her husband, who became the sole and absolute owner thereof. During his lifetime, Shri Sant Ram had executed a will bequeathing the suit premises in favour of the appellant No.1 (defendant No.1) and by virtue of the said will, she had become the exclusive owner thereof. It was thus stated that the respondent/plaintiff had no concern with the suit premises and does not have the locus standi to institute the partition suit.