VIJAY KUMAR Vs. VARUN KHULLAR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are filed against the self-same impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 23.9.2017. By the impugned judgment the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1/Sh. Varun Khullar has been decreed and the counter-claim filed by the appellant/defendant no.2/Sh. Vijay Kumar seeking specific performance for respondent no.1/plaintiff to transfer his share in the suit property to the appellant/defendant no.2, has been dismissed.

(2.) The subject suit for partition was filed by Sh. Varun Khullar pleading that the suit property was purchased by Sh. Varun Khullar jointly with Sh. Ram Parkash Ajmani and who was the defendant no.1 in the suit. Defendant no.1 Sh. Ram Parkash Ajmani sold his share to the defendant no.2 Sh. Vijay Kumar, the appellant and who was also the counter-claimant. In the suit filed by Sh. Varun Khullar for partition the defence of the appellant Sh. Vijay Kumar was that the respondent no.1/plaintiff Sh. Varun Khullar had agreed to sell his share to the appellant Sh. Vijay Kumar. Accordingly the suit for partition was prayed to be dismissed and the counter-claim for specific performance of the agreement to sell by the respondent no.1/plaintiff Sh. Varun Khullar of his share in the suit property to the appellant Sh. Vijay Kumar was prayed to be allowed. Suit property in question is the ground floor, first floor and half built 2 nd floor of the property bearing no.FA-278 (New) and 33/37 (Old), situated in the area of Village Basai Daraput, Delhi State, Delhi colony known as Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi on a plot of 50 sq. yards.

(3.) At the outset, it is required to be noted that whereas the respondent no.1/plaintiff Sh. Varun Khullar led evidence and proved his case the appellant/Sh. Vijay Kumar defendant no.2 in the suit and the counter-claimant have led no evidence because on account of not appearing for cross-examination the right of the appellant/defendant no.2/counter-claimant was closed. Suit for partition was therefore decreed as the appellant/Sh. Vijay Kumar/defendant no.2/counter- claimant failed to prove his case as no evidence existed on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.2/counter-claimant.