ARUN BHATIA Vs. MADHURI BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF filed this suit for partition of the properties left behind by mother of the plaintiff and the defendant, late Ms. Bimla Bhatia who died intestate on 16th January, 2007. Following 3 immovable properties: 1) 1, rajdoot Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi; 2)C-23, Green Park (main), New Delhi; and 3) E-201, Blue Hills, Nagar Road, Pune, Maharashtra are the subject matter of partition. Plaintiff alleged that apart from 3 immovable properties, mother also left behind some movable assets, being household effects, investments, bank balances, shares, Fixed Deposits, etc.

(2.) THE plaintiff placed the value of Rajdoot Marg property at approximately Rs. 20 crore, Green Park property at approximately Rs. 12 Crore. The defendant after putting appearance filed written statement cum counter claim wherein she stated that the plaintiff was in possession of all jewelery of the mother, fixed deposits, all documents and files, bonds and other cash assets and household effects to which defendant had no access. The plaintiff had not disclosed these assets and value thereof. She stated that the defendant, as no point of time, has ever refused partition of the property and was willing to partition the entire movable and immovable assets in an equitable manner. She had requested plaintiff to disclose the value and amount of all movable and immovable assets including bank accounts, FDRs, bonds, jewelery and household effects. The plaintiff supplied only a selective list of bank and another documents which was incomplete. In the counter claim, she stated that the mother had left behind following movable assets:-

(3.) SHE also stated that parties were not in a position to remain joint with each other in respect of movable and immovable properties and defendant had requested the plaintiff to partition the properties by metes and bounds and had also requested the defendant to sell the properties or divide the sale proceeds equally. However, it is the plaintiff who refused to partition the property on one or the other pretext. She submitted that the value of the third property, i. e. , E-201, Blue Hills was approximately 56 lacs and the value of movable assets was around Rs. 1,75,00,000/ -. She also wanted a decree of partition for movable and immovable properties. Along with her counter claim she filed a number of e-mails exchanged between parties in support of her contention that she has always been willing and ready to partition the property and it is only the plaintiff who had not been responding favourably. She also gave a proposed sharing of household goods lying in E-201, Blue Hills.