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

2006 Supreme(Del) 499

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
UNMUKT BHATNAGAR – Appellant
Versus
MANOJ BHATNAGAR – Respondent


SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) CS (OS) No. 440/2006 the plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction. Plaintiff no. 3 was the wife of the defendant but the parties separated and are divorced. Plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 have been born out of the wedlock of plaintiff no. 3 and the defendant. The plaintiffs are residing separately in United kingdom.

( 2 ) LATE Bankey Bihari Bhatnagar was the father of the defendant, grand father of plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 and erstwhile father in law of plaintiff no. 3 He owned a property bearing no. A-49, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi measuring about 340 square yards having perpetual lease rights in the said plot. Late Sh. Bhatnagar executed a Will dated 22. 12. 1991 which was duly registered. This Will was prior to the divorce of plaintiff no. 3 and the defendant.

( 3 ) THE relevant portion of the Will reads as under:"after my demise, the whole of property No. A-49, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, comprising of both ground and first floor shall be inherited absolutely by my wife Smt. Shanti Bhatnagar, residing with me at the said premises. Subsequent to my death and consequent upon the death of my wife Smt. Shanti Bhatnagar, and in case she pred

















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top