Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ.
KULBIR SINGH CHANDHOK & ANR - Appellants
Versus
AMARDEEP SINGH CHANDHOK & ORS - Respondents
FAO(OS) 402/2015
Decided on : 10-5-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant No.1 : Mr Jagjit Singh and Mr Bhagat Singh
For the Appellant No.2 : Mr Rajiv Bahl
For the Respondents 3, 6 & 9: Mr K.Datta and Mr Vivek Malik
For the Respondents 5 & 8: Mr Sumeher Bajaj
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151, 152 - Claim of title - Gift deed - Share - Allowed - Claim of title on the basis of the gift deed - It gives them 1/3rd undivided right in the land and building - Appellants get under the gift deed is 1/3rd undivided share in the land and building - Appellants are entitled to occupy and use the ground floor - Appellants cannot claim any extra benefit on account of the same - Held, appellants cannot claim more than 1/3rd undivided share in the land and building - Appellants cannot oust the other joint owners from using and occupying the property - Impugned order does not warrant any interference - Direction given by the learned judge directing the appellants to remove the locks on the gate to the lawn and not to obstruct free access of the children to the garden at any time that they may desire to play in the said garden to play does not call for any interference - Applications have been filed to overreach the court and to resile from the admissions made before court which cannot be countenanced - Appeal and the applications are dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FAO(OS) 402/2015 & CM Nos. 23228/2015 (correction in the statement of counsel for the appellants), 31160/2015(directions)
1. This is a classic case of greed over-shadowing relationship. One brother (the appellant No. 1) is trying to take the advantage of his situation and deprive the other brothers and their family of their rights to the property left behind by their father. Attempts are being made to prolong litigation by one means or the other. Not only is the brother attempting to prolong litigation himself but is also using his son to do so. Attempts have been made not only by way of vague and false averments made in applications but also by resiling from statements recorded before this Court.
2. The appeal impugns order dated 15.07.2015, which order was passed in furtherance to order dated 29.05.2015, whereby it was directed that the appellants and their family members shall not obstruct the children of the family/extended family residing in different portions of the suit premises from visiting/playing in the garden in the front portion of the suit premises and it was further directed that the locks pose an obstruction to free access to children to the garden at any time that they may desire to play and directs removal of locks on the gate to the garden and in the case of requirement of putting the lock on the gate, keys to be shared with the other parties.
3. The suit property is property No.B-39, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi. The property was originally owned by late Shri Man Singh Chandhok. Man Singh Chandhok had four sons, namely, Swinder Singh Chandhok, Gurucharan Singh Chandhok, Daljit Singh and Kulbir Singh Chandhok. One son Daljit Singh pre-deceased Man Singh Chandhok. The dispute is between three sons and/or their families.
4. The present dispute relates to Kulbir Singh Chandhok and his sons, on one hand, and Gurucharan Singh Chandhok and his sons and the legal heirs of Daljit Singh, on the other. Kulbir Singh Chandhok has three sons, Amardeep, Karandeep and Armaan. Armaan was a minor when the suit was filed and is stated to have attained majority on 03.09.2015 during the pendency of the present appeal. The two sons of Kulbir Singh Chandhok, namely, Amardeep and Karandeep filed the subject suit for partition, declaration, rendition of account and permanent injunction against their father, minor brother and other family members, not only in respect of the subject property but also in respect of other properties left behind by Man Singh Chandhok. Kulbir Singh Chandhok (father of the Plaintiffs) and the minor brother Armaan have been arrayed as defendants 1 & 9 respectively in the Suit. The present appeal has been filed by said defendants 1 & 9.
5. The title to the subject property is claimed by the plaintiffs, i.e., the two major sons of Kulbir Singh Chandhok through a gift deed dated 27.10.2008. It is contended that as per the gift deed, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 9 are holding 1/12th share each, i.e., 1/4th of the 1/3rd out of the undivided plot. It is contended that as per the gift deed, Man Singh Chandhok gifted the subject property in favour of the three sons and their families, each having one-third undivided share and the plaintiffs, being two out of the four members comprising the family of Kulbir Singh Chandhok, are entitled to 50% share of the one-third.
6. Pending the suit, Kulbir Singh Chandhok and Armaan Chandhok allege to have purchased the share of the two plaintiffs.
7. Pending the suit, it transpires that there was a dispute with regard to the use of the front lawn on the ground floor of the subject property. Kulbir Singh Chandhok, the appellant, claimed exclusive ownership rights of the ground floor. It is contended that he alone has become the owner of the ground floor portion including the lawn and had exclusive ownership and usage rights to the same. It is this stand which appears to have led to the dispute and deprivation of the children of the other b
