SUSHIL BHARDWAJ Vs. VED PARKASH SHASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this suit, the plaintiff seeks partition and permanent injunction against the defendants. The reliefs claimed include preliminary decree of partition in respect of properties being E-32, Satyawati Colony, Phase-III, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, and a vacant plot measuring 200 sq. yds., in HUDA Colony, Kurukushetra, Haryana, (which, the plaintiff contends, are joint family properties).

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the purpose of this order are that the plaintiff's father, Shri Ved Prakash Shastri, defendant No.1 herein (who has since deceased during the pendency of the proceedings), shifted to Delhi in 1960 along with his mother. The plaintiff further avers that his grandfather, Pt. Vasu Dev Bhardwaj died in 1965. He was survived by his widow and two other sons and a daughter. The plaintiff avers that after the death of his grandfather, his legal heirs mutually divided and partitioned the joint family properties. The properties, according to the plaintiff, which fell to the share of his father, i.e. the defendant No.1, became ancestral properties. It is alleged that the defendant No.1 as karta of his joint family (comprising of his sons and other family members,) acquired the two properties for which partition decree is sought in this case. It is averred that these properties were purchased with the funds which fell partly to defendant No.1's share in the partition with other members of his family as well as partly with his own funds.

(3.) IT is claimed that defendant No.1 (i.e. the plaintiff's father) and the defendant No.2 (i.e. the plaintiff's brother) are not inclined to give him any share in the joint family properties and are threatening to illegally dispossess him from joint family property, in his possession and unauthorizedly interfere with it. The plaintiff describes certain other proceedings including suit No.29/2001 titled 'Sushil Bhardwaj v. Ved Parkash etc.' in which the Court had granted him the liberty to see his ailing mother during the reasonable hours. The plaintiff further adverts to defendants No.4 and 5 having lodged police complaints against alleged illegal actions of defendants No.1 and 2 in relation to his mother.