( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts. Late L. Roop Narain was the perpetual lessee of plot measuring 212. 5 sq. yds. bearing Plot No. 32 Block No. 205-C, New Capital of Delhi in pursuance to a perpetual lease deed dated 28. 7. 1939 (Ex. PW1/1 ). The said property is now known as 37, Todar Mal Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110001 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ). Shri L. Roop Narain is stated to have passed away in 1957.

( 2 ) LATE L. Roop Narain was survived by his son late Shri Amar Nath bhatnagar who is stated to have inherited the various immovable properties of late L. Roop Narain. Such properties are stated to have been situated in panipat, Haryana apart from the properties in Delhi but the same are stated to have been sold, the details of which are not known to the plaintiff. The principal property subject matter of the suit is the suit property.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff is the son of late Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar who also passed away on 30. 9. 1995. Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar married twice. The two wives are Smt. Kamla Devi and Smt. Chand Rani, both of whom pre-deceased Shri amar Nath Bhatnagar. The plaintiff and defendant No. 8 are the sons from the first wife, Smt. Kamla Devi, while defendants No. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 are the sons from the second wife, Smt. Chand Rani. Defendants No. 3 and 4 are the son and widow respectively of late Madan Mohan Bhatnagar, a pre- deceased son of Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar from Smt. Chand Rani. The family tree is as under:

( 4 ) THE plaintiff claims that since the movable and immovable properties were inherited by late Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar from his father Late L. Roop narain, all the sons and daughters, whether from the first wife or the second wife have a share in the property. The daughters are stated to have a lesser share by reason of the fact that they will get only a share out of the share falling to late Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar. The sons are stated to be coparceners in the property having 1/6th share each and would further get 1/48th share from the share falling to late Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar. The daughters would get 1/48th share. It may be noticed at this stage that during the course of the arguments, however, it has been stated that the daughters would have now equal share arising from the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) made w. e. f. 9. 9. 2005 giving equal rights to the females in the coparcenary property.

( 5 ) LATE Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar is stated not to have left behind any will. The property is stated to be under the control and management of defendant No. 1 even though he is not the eldest son. The plaintiff is stated to have asked for partition but the defendants failed to oblige.

( 6 ) THE suit is resisted by defendants No. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. The principal defence taken is that the property in question is not ancestral in nature in view of the devolution by succession on late Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar and the same was his self-acquired property. Shri Bhatnagar is stated to have executed the last Will and testament dated 7. 2. 1983 duly registered with the Sub- registrar, Delhi on the same date. It is claimed that in terms of the said will, the property in question including the plot, some shares and agricultural land at Panipat apart from household effects were bequeathed exclusively to defendant No. 1 who became the absolute owner of the property in question. Even the movable property not included in the Will was bequeathed to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 thus claims exclusive right to the estate of late Shri Amar Nath bhatnagar. The plaintiff is stated to have separated from his parents in 1954 and did not even invite them for his marriage. Late Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar is stated to have purchased a plot No. WZ-28, Mukh Ram Park Extn. , Tilak Nagar, new Delhi in the name of the plaintiff out of love and affection and the existence of any HUF or coparcanery

Click Here to Read the rest of this document