Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
VIJAY LAXMI GUPTA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
SURESH KUMAR PURI AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
RFA NO. 336 OF 2005
DECIDED ON : 24-10-2017
For the Appellant :Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Ms. Parul Sharma, Mr. Anshul Duggal and Mr. Prateek Yadav, Advocates
The main legal point established is the determination of ownership rights in a property dispute, including the validity of wills and the creation of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
Headnote:
CPC - Property Dispute - 96 - The court discussed the ownership of the property, the creation of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), the validity of wills, and the rights of the parties. The court held that the property was not an HUF property and the appellant/plaintiff became a 1/7th undivided owner of the subject property, passing a preliminary decree for partition.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession and injunction of a portion of the property claimed to be her share. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the property was HUF property and denying the oral partition/settlement pleaded by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the property was HUF property and rejecting the plaintiff's claim of oral partition/settlement. The court noted that the defendants did not prove the will of the mother, and should have granted the plaintiff her share of the mother's share.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement to possession, time-barred suit, valuation, nullity of mutation order, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the property was not an HUF property and the plaintiff became a 1/7th undivided owner, passing a preliminary decree for partition.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff was declared the owner of a 1/7th undivided co-ownership share in the subject property, with a preliminary decree for partition. The case was remanded for the passing of a final decree.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff/daughter/sister impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 19.11.2005 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for possession and injunction filed by her with respect to a portion of the property bearing no. 8646 and 8651 Gau Shala Marg, Double Phatak Road, Bagh Rao Ji Ward-16, Delhi-6. The property as a whole is hereinafter referred to as the subject property.
2. As per the plaint appellant/plaintiff pleaded that the entire property at Gau Shala Marg was absolutely owned by her father Sh. G.S. Puri who died intestate on 5.2.1976. The mother of the appellant/plaintiff and wife of Sh. G.S. Puri, namely, Smt. Pushpawati Puri also died intestate at Delhi on 29.2.2000. It was pleaded that in November, 1997 there was an oral partition/settlement whereby a portion on the ground floor of the subject property, shown in black colour in the site plan annexed to the plaint comprising of three rooms, kitchen, bathroom, verandah, open space as also the terrace at the first floor was given to the appellant/plaintiff as her share of the property, hereinafter referred to as the suit property. It was further pleaded in the plaint that possession of the suit property was illegally taken over by the defendants and hence the suit was filed. Appellant/plaintiff also pleaded that she had got her name mutated with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 12.12.1997 and this was informed to her by the Tehsildar Nazrul vide letter dated 22.9.1998 that the mutation has been done vide mutation no. 9082 dated 22.9.1998. Accordingly, the suit was prayed to be decreed with the following reliefs:-
“(i). A decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants of the portion/premises comprising three rooms, kitchen, bathroom, latrine, veranda open space at the ground floor and terrace and first floor as shown in black colour in the site plan of the properties bearing No. 8646 and 8651 situated at Gau Shala Marg, Double Phatak Road, Bagh Rao Ji Ward-16, Delhi-6.
(ii). A decree for injunction where by the defendants be restrained from selling, alienating, parting with possession nor creating any third party interest in the suit properties bearing No. 8646 and 8651 situated at Gau Shala Marg, Double Pathak Road, Bagh Rao Ji Ward-16, Delhi-6 as shown in the site plan attached with plaint.”
3. There were a total of six defendants in the suit and which six defendants are the brothers of the appellant/plaintiff. These defendants are also the respondents in the present appeal. All the defendants except defendant no. 3 disputed the case of the plaintiff and prayed for the suit to be dismissed. Defendant no. 3/Sh. Rakesh Kumar Puri, respondent no. 3 in this appeal, had filed a written statement and had also given evidence supporting the appellant/plaintiff that the suit be decreed as prayed by the appellant/plaintiff. The other defendants being defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 (hereinafter referred to as the contesting defendants/respondents) filed their written statement and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the subject property had no longer remained the individual property of the father late Sh. G.S. Puri, inasmuch as, the father late Sh. G.S. Puri in the year 1965 had formed an HUF being Sh. G.S. Puri Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), and had put the subject property in the common hotchpotch of HUF. It was pleaded that Sh. G.S. Puri had not died intestate but he had left his Will dated 21.9.1975 and whereby he had given his 1/8th share in the subject property, being his share of the HUF property, in favour of his wife Smt. Pushpawati Puri i.e mother of the parties. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the mother of the parties Smt. Pushpawati Puri had executed Will dated 22.9.1997 whereby she bequeathed her 1/4th share in the subject property (1/8th share received by her as a memb
