KANAK JAIN AND ORS Vs. CHAKRESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four plaintiffs, namely (i) Kanak Jain; (ii) Abhay Kumar Jain; (iii) Rekha Jain; and, (iv) Ektaa Jain, being the widow, son and two daughters of late Shri Suresh Chand Jain, have instituted this suit for partition and rendition of accounts with respect to Property No.1734-A and 1734, Dariba Kalan, Delhi 110 006, against Chakresh Kumar Jain, being the younger brother of said Suresh Chand Jain.

(2.) The suit was entertained and summons thereof ordered to be issued and vide ex parte ad interim order dated 12th August, 2018 parties directed to maintain status quo regarding the aforesaid properties. The defendant, besides filing his written statement has also filed a Counter Claim seeking declaration that the interference of the plaintiffs in the peaceful possession of Shop No.1734/2, Dariba Kalan, Delhi is illegal and unauthorised and the plaintiffs have no right or claim to Shop No.1734/2, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. Vide consent order dated 24th May, 2011, the plaintiffs were permitted to take out eviction proceedings against M/s. Mehtab Singh Jain & Sons and the defendant agreed to co-operate in the same.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint, (i) that Suresh Chand Jain, and the defendant jointly purchased Property No.1733/1 1735, Dariba Kalan, Delhi 110 006 vide registered Sale Deed dated 20th July, 1972; (ii) after the demise of Suresh Chand Jain, other portions of the said property, apart from two shops bearing No.1734-A which was under the tenancy of M/s. Mehtab Singh Jain & Sons and Shop No.1734 which was under the tenancy of M/s. Ranjit Singh Jain Jewellers were sold; (iii) Shop No.1734- A continues to be in occupation of M/s. Mehtab Singh Jain & Sons; however Shop No.1734 was lying locked for more than twenty years prior to November, 2005, when the defendant unauthorisedly and without the consent of the plaintiffs occupied the same and commenced his own business activities therein; (iv) the request of the plaintiffs to the defendant to partition by metes and bounds Shop No.1734 did not meet with any success; (v) finally the plaintiffs got issued a Legal Notice dated 10th June, 2008 on the defendant calling upon the defendant to partition the said property and the defendant in his response dated 17th June, 2008 thereto denied the share of the plaintiffs in Shop No.1734 on the ground of a mutual oral settlement of the year 1997 whereunder the Shop No.1734 had fallen to the share of the defendant and Shop No.1734-A had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs; and, (vi) no such settlement had ever taken place between the parties.