SWATANTER KUMAR,J.

( 1 ) 5the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition of properties and rendition of accounts as stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the daughter of Shri Ram Kishan Garg (deceased), while defendant No. 1 is the son, defendant No. 2 is the widow and defendant no. 3 is the daughter of the deceased. He died intestate on 18. 9. 1988 at Delhi leaving behind the movable and immovable properties as stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is entitled to one fourth share in all the properties and thus, is also entitled to that share in the income from the said properties for all the years as the defendants have to come forward and divide the properties equally among all the heirs of the deceased father of the plaintiff. She had even written letters to them on 06. 01. 2005 and 18. 01. 2005 but of no consequence. The conduct of the defendants compelled her to file the present suit for partition and rendition of accounts.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants. They have filed different written statements. In the written statements, they have raised various preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the suit, including that the suit is barred under the provisions of Order 2 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code; that the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for non-payment of proper court fee; that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit for partition and that the suit is already barred under Section 23 of the hindu Marriage Act.

( 3 ) ON merits, it is stated that some of the properties, as mentioned in paragraph 5 were even purchased after the death of the deceased and that they cannot be, in any case, the subject matter of a suit for partition before this court. It is also the case of the defendants that late Shri Ram Kishan had expressed his desire to give a flat at Azad apartments to the plaintiff after the entire estate being bequeathed in favour of defendant No. 2. However, as the said flat was rented out and could not be got vacated, property No. 17, Empire Estate, Town Hall, mehrauli, New Delhi was purchased by defendant No. 2 for the plaintiff.

( 4 ) ON 28th October, 2005, the court passed the following order:" I have heard the counsel for the parties. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues arise and are framed: (i) Whether the deceased Sh. Ram krishan Garg had not executed the will dated 07. 09. 1888, of which a valid and proper probate was granted in probate case No. 23/89? If so, what is its effect? - OPP (i) Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata in view of the judgment in probate case no. 23/89? - OPD (iii) Whether the plaintiff has not paid the proper court fee, as alleged in the preliminary objections by defendant No. 2 in his written statement? - OPD (iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the Law of Limitation? - OPP (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition of the properties as mentioned in para 5 and schedule A of the plaint? If so, to what effect, in which of the properties and in what share? - OPP (vi) Whether the jurisdiction of this court is barred with respect to the lands governed by Delhi Land Reforms act? - OPD (vii) Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of the properties mentioned in paragraph 5 and Schedule A of the plaint? If so, to what effect? - OPP (viii) Whether the assets and goodwill of M/s. R. K. Associates belonged exclusively to Shri Ram Kishan Garg? OPP (ix) Whether the plaintiff can lay any claim to the properties, partition of which is claimed on the strength of the will dated 07. 09. 1988? - OPP (x) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts from defendant nos. 1 and 2? - OPP (xi) Relief no other issue arises or is framed. Parties to file their list of witnesses within two weeks from today.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document