JAWAHAR LAL KHANNA Vs. JIA LAL KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARTITION of House No. B-III/31, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and commercial building bearing Municipal No. XIII/2407-15 (New) Teliwara, near Sadar Bazar, delhi is sought.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaint, the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1and2 are brothers; their father Sh. Panna Lal Khanna was the owner of the aforesaid two properties; the father died on 29th July, 1975 leaving his widow and other children also besides the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1and2; that the father left a Will dated 1st May, 1973 bequeathing the aforesaid two properties to the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1and2 in equal shares after the demise of his wife Smt. Bishan Devi; that Smt. Bishan Devi also died intestate on 29th november, 1975; that the Will dated 1st May, 1973 of the father has been probated by the court of the District Judge, delhi vide order dated 14th April, 1980. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of a part of the house in Lajpat Nagar; the defendant No. 1 is in possession of another part of the said house; the remaining house as well as the entire property at Teliwara are stated to be tenanted. The cause of action for the suit was stated to be receipt of letter by the plaintiff from the asstt. Settlement Commissioner, Govt. of India impleaded as defendant No. 3 being the lessor of the land underneath the Lajpat Nagar house, inviting objections, if any, of the plaintiff to the application of the defendant No. 1 for mutation of the Lajpat Nagar house from the name of the father to himself.

(3.) THE defendant No. 1 contested the suit. The defence of the defendant No. 1 is that he had been issued letters of administration with Will (Supra) annexed of the father; that the plaintiff as well as the defendant No. 2 had given affidavits in the said proceedings stating that both the aforesaid properties had been constructed by the defendant No. 1 and all the expenses of construction had been borne by the defendant No. 1 and that the rent from the tenants in both the properties were being realized by the defendant No. 1 only, even during the lifetime of the parents. The defendant No. 1 also pleaded that the defendant no. 2 had also executed a relinquishment deed dated 24th April, 1984 registered on 26th April, 1984 in his favour and confirming that the defendant No. 1 is the owner of the properties in question. The defendant No. 1 contends that the properties were acquired by him only in the name of his father and that he is the absolute owner thereof and the plaintiff or the defendant No. 2 have no share in the same.