MOHINDER SINGH Vs. OM PRAKASH GAHLOT & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit against i) Sh. Om Prakash Gahlot; ii) Sh. Prem Singh Gahlot through legal heirs viz. a) Smt. Rajo, b) Sh. Sunil, c) Sh. Sushil, d) Sh. Satish, and, e) Sh. Sanjay; iii) Sh. Sat Narain, and iv) Sh. Bir Singh, for (I) partition of property bearing Khasra No.28/7 min (1- 9), 12 min (3-7), 12/2 (0-5), 13 min south (3-11), 14 (5-3), 18 (4-4), 19 (4- 4), 195/2 min (0-2 1/2) total measuring 21-7 Bighas approx. (Excluding 920 sq. yards out of 22-5 1/2 Bighas as shown in Red Colour in the site plan) situated in the revenue estate of village Kakrola, New Delhi; (II) apportionment of the amount lying in the saving bank account No.20383359134 in the joint names of Sat Narain and Prem Singh maintained with Allahabad Bank, Kakrola Housing Colony, New Delhi having branch Code 2233, and, (III) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit properties.

(2.) The suit came up first before this Court on 7th November, 2016 when, while entertaining the same and issuing summons / notice thereof, vide ex parte order status quo qua title and possession was directed to be maintained with respect to the suit property.

(3.) The written statements have been filed by, (a) defendant no.1 Om Prakash Gahlot; (b) Sunil, Satish and Sanjay being the three sons of defendant no.2 Prem Singh Gahlot; and, (c) Sushil, another son of defendant no.2 Prem Singh Gahlot. No written statement has been filed on behalf of defendants no.3 and 4 though recorded in the order dated 11 th January, 2017 to have been served on 3rd January, 2017. The counsel, who till then was appearing for defendant no.1 Om Prakash Gahlot however on 2nd February, 2018 stated that he was appearing also for defendants no.3 &4. However, Mr. Anil Gahlot, Advocate who on 2nd February, 2018 had stated so today states that though he is an advocate but is represented through Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate and Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate states that he is not representing the defendants no.3 and 4. However, the counsel for the plaintiff today states that defendant no.3 Sat Narain is present in Court and points out to a gentleman who on asking has furnished his proof of identify and the Court Master confirms that the person present is defendant no.3 Sat Narain. A copy of the Aadhaar Card of defendant no.3 is kept on record and the original returned. The defendant no.3 states he represents defendant no.4 Bir Singh also. The counsel for the plaintiff also states that defendants no.3 and 4 are brothers of the plaintiff.