The plaintiff, as the daughter of the deceased, did not have any right to claim a share in the property, which was the self-acquired property of the deceased. The court also held that the plaintiff could not claim any right under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, as her mother died before the Act came into force.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for partition of property constructed on plot No.94, Block-51, Panchsheel Cooperative Housing Society, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, pleading :-

(i) that the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant no.5 Shri Sandeep Bhambani was the daughter of late Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana and Smt. Leelawati Sardana;

(ii) Shri Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana was the only son of Shri Uttam Sardana who was a resident of Pakistan; Shri Uttam Sardana was a doctor by profession and owned vast ancestral agricultural lands, shops and houses in Pakistan;

(iii) that upon the demise of Shri Uttam Sardana all his aforesaid properties were inherited by Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana as his only legal heir.

(iv) that Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana though an Advocate by profession, only managed the aforesaid properties;

(v) upon partition in the year 1947, Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana migrated to Gwalior leaving behind the properties aforesaid in Pakistan;

(vi) that in lieu of properties left in Pakistan, Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana was allotted agricultural lands in Hisar, Haryana;

(vii) that Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana was working with the Rehabilitation Department, Govt. of India for a brief time and his wife Smt. Leelawati Sardana was employed with the Home Department, Government of India;

(viii) Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana, from the joint family funds, in or about the year 1959 purchased a house in Karol Bagh;

(ix) that in or about the year 1961-62 Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana applied for plot of land in Panchsheel Co-operative Housing Society in the name of his younger son Shri Surender Sardana;

(x) that Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana died on 30th October, 1963;

(xi) that Shri Surender Sardana sold the lands in Hisar for the family needs, including for payment of installments of the plot aforesaid in Panchsheel Park;

(xii) that a perpetual Sub Lease of the plot aforesaid in Panchsheel Park was executed in favour of Shri Surender Sardana on 13th April, 1969;

(xiii) Shri Surender Sardana in or about the year 1985 sold the Karol Bagh house and invested the sale proceeds thereof in raising the construction over the plot in Panchsheel Park;

(xiv) that Shri Surender Sardana started living alone in the Panchsheel Park house in the year 1999;

(xv) that sale proceeds of the jewelry of Smt. Leelawati Sardana were also used in construction of the house at Panchsheel Park;

(xvi) that Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana and Smt. Leelawati Sardana, besides the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant no.5 and Shri Surender Sardana aforesaid, also had another son namely Shri Jatinder Sardana (defendant no.1 herein) and three other daughters namely Smt. Sushma Dewan (defendant no.2), Smt. Sushila Arora (defendant no.3) and Smt. Pushpa Mediratta (defendant No.4);

(xvii) that the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant no.5 expired on 9th November, 1993;

(xviii) that Shri Surender Sardana was allowed to stay in the Panchsheel Park house as a he did not have a source of income and was unmarried;

(xix) that the Panchsheel Park house was “a joint family property, it was always subject to partition amongst the children of Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana”;

(xx) that Shri Surender Sardana always assured the plaintiff that the Panchsheel Park house would be partitioned and the plaintiff would be given her share therein;

(xxi) that the plaintiff continued under the belief that her mother’s share in the Panchsheel Park house was secured;

(xxii) Shri Surender Sardana died intestate on 5th April, 2011, without leaving any Class-I heir within the meaning of Hindu Succession Act, 1956;

(xxiii) after the death of Shri Surender Sardana, the defendant no.1 took over the property;

(xxiv) that the defendant no.1 inspite of demand of the plaintiff and other family members refused to partition the Panchsheel Park property;

(xxv) that the defendant no.1 on the contrary applied to the DDA for mutation of the Panchsheel Park property in his own name;