SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Del) 454

High Court Of Delhi
JAI BHAGWAN GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
BHAGO DEVI - Respondent
Suit 1549 of 1992
Decided On : 04/11/2001

Advocates Appeared:
Hori Lal

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish ownership of the disputed property in a partition suit.

Headnote:

partition - property ownership - Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, Section 33 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 8 - Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, Section 33, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 8

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts claiming a share in ancestral properties. The defendants denied the claims and raised legal objections to the maintainability of the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the disputed property by the deceased. The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

Issues: Ownership of the disputed property, maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of parties

Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish ownership of the property, and the plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient evidence led to the dismissal of the suit.

Final Decision: The suit was dismissed, and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

A. K. Sikri

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed the Suit for partion and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff is the son of defendant no. 1 who is his mother. Defendants 2 to 5 are brothers of the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 9 are the sisters of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 9 are the legal heirs of Shri Balwant rai who died at Delhi on 31/3/1986. It is stated in the plaint that Shri Balwant Rai was the owner of two properties namely,

1. property No. X/431 (old No. 266) Ram Nagar, gali No. l, Gandhi Nagar Delhi. This property was constructed on a plot of land admeasuring SO sq. yds. by Shri Balwant Rai after having purchased the same from the previous owner. 2. A house in village Deorah, Tehsil Kaithal (Haryana), constructed on a plot of land admeasuring 225 sq. yds.

( 2 ) IT is further stated that Shri Sulekh Chand father of Shri Balwant Rai and grand father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 9 and father-in-law of defendant no. 1 was owner of two properties namely (a) two shopts constructed on an area of approximately 100 sq. yds. ; and (b) a house constructed on an area of 250 sq. yds. in village Deorah, Tehsil Kaithal (Haryana ). On the death of Shri Sulekh Chand these properties being ancestral properties came to be owned by Shri balwant Rai and his sons as coparceners. Thus, Shri balwant Rai had l/6th undivided share in these ancestral properties while the remaining 5/6th share was ownerd by the plaintiff and defendants no. 2 to 5 in equal undivided shares i. e. l/6th share each in their0 own right. The said properties are jointly owned and possessed by the parties.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, Shri Balwant Rai died inteste and on his death his estated devolved upon the parties to the Suit as they are Class I legal heirs in equal undivided shares. The plaintiff accordingly claims 1/loth share in the two properties left by Shri balwant Rai as well as 1/loth undivided share in balwant Rai s i/6th undivided share in the ancestral properties at Village Deorah, Tehsil Kaithal (Haryana) as mentioned above.

( 4 ) THE defendants filed their written statement and denied the various averments made by the plaintiff in the Suit. It is alleged in the written statement that there is no Joint family property and as such Suit for partition was not at all maintainable. The Suit was filed simply to harass the defendant no. l who was 75 years of age. Apart from number of legal objections to the maintainability of the suit, on merits it is stated that plaintiff is not at all in possession of any portion of the property and as such for a suit for partition he had to fix court-fee on the share, which he assesses to be his share. In the instant case the plaintiff has assessed his share to be Rs. 1,00,000. 00 in the property and Rs. 10,000. 00 in the income of the properties, so the court-fees was to be paid on rs. 1,10,000/ advalorem, but the plaintiff has affixed the Court-fee of Rs. 40. 00 only and as such the plaint should be rejected on this ground alone.

( 5 ) IN so far as the property in Delhi is concerned it is stated in the written statement that. the same was never owned by Shri Balwant Rai and it was in fact purchased on 2/7/1973 by Shri Amar chand, defendant no. 6 with his own funds. Although sale deed was not registered at that timem, all documents including agreement to sell. power of attorney, receipt, were executed by Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others in favour of Shri Amar Chand only. After the purchase of the said plot defendant no. 5 even constructed two rooms, bath and kitchen on the said property/land with his own funds. Further constructions were also done in stages by him on these funds. On 2/6/1988 the defendant no. 5 sold the said property for his own bonafide needs to Shri Sri ram-defendant no. 2, Shri Ram Kumar defendant no. 3, Shri veer Bhan-defendant no. 4 and Smt. Kala Wati for a consideration of Rs. 45,000. 00 and executed all necessary documents in their favour. Smt. Kala Wati , wife of def










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top