IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Shabnam Sikand – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Sikand and Another - Respondents
Civil Suit (Os) No. 242 of 2019
Decided On : 06-05-2019
Partition - Hindu Succession Act - CS(OS) 242/2019 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 - The court analyzed the plaintiff's claim for partition of property and declaration of a Relinquishment Deed as null and void. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was not in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, as the plaintiff and her daughter were not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The court rejected the plaint and allowed the plaintiff to take a refund of the court fees paid less Rs.1,00,000.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of property, declaration of a Relinquishment Deed as null and void, and injunctions against the defendants. The plaintiff claimed entitlement to a share in the property based on the Hindu Succession Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim for partition and declaration of the Relinquishment Deed as null and void was not in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act. The court rejected the plaint and allowed the plaintiff to take a refund of the court fees paid less Rs.1,00,000.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the plaintiff and her daughter to a share in the property under the Hindu Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's claim for partition and declaration of the Relinquishment Deed as null and void was not in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, as the plaintiff and her daughter were not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plaint and allowed the plaintiff to take a refund of the court fees paid less Rs.1,00,000.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Ia No.6552/2019 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 242/2019 & IAs No.6550/2019 (u/O XI R-1 CPC) & 6551/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)
3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for (i) partition of property No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, claiming 1/4th share therein; (ii) declaration as null and void of the Relinquishment Deed dated 6th October, 2015 executed by Vikram Sikand, husband of the plaintiff, of his share in the property; (iii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party right or parting with physical possession of the property; and, (iv) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the possession of the plaintiff of her share in the property.
4. The suit is listed subject to office objection as to valuation and court fees.
5. Be that as it may, the plaintiff on the averments in the plaint, is not found to be entitled to the reliefs claimed and it has been enquired so from the counsel for the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff has instituted this suit, pleading that (a) Rai Bahadur Durgadas Sikand owned properties No.96 & 98, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, property No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and property No.7, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi; (b) an informal family arrangement was reached between the four branches of legal heirs of Rai Bahadur Durgadas Sikand, with one branch of the legal heirs choosing property bearing No.98, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi, second branch choosing property bearing No.96, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, third branch choosing property bearing No.7, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and the fourth branch headed by Anil Sikand choosing property bearing No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi; (c) Anil Sikand was the owner of one half of property No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi; (d) Anil Sikand died intestate in the year 26th August, 2013 leaving behind defendant no.1 as his widow, a son Vikram Sikand, a granddaughter Rhea Sikand and a daughter i.e. the defendant no.2 Indira Sikand; (e) Vikram Sikand son of Anil Sikand died on 19th January, 2016 leaving behind the plaintiff as his wife and a daughter Rhea Sikand; (f) thus the plaintiff, with her daughter Rhea Sikand and the defendants no.1 and 2 have equal 1/4th share each in half of property bearing No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi owned by Anil Sikand; (g) the plaintiff was having access to the said property along with her husband Vikram Sikand and her daughter Rhea Sikand till the demise of her husband Vikram Sikand who was also keeping a room locked in the property; (h) the Voter ID Card of the plaintiff is also at the address of the suit property; (i) the water and electricity bills of the said property are being paid by Sikand & Company, a partnership firm in which the plaintiff is a 50% shareholder; (j) the plaintiff along with her husband Vikram Sikand resided in property bearing No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi for two years after marriage on 14th November, 1996; (k) now the defendants no.1 and 2 are residing in the half portion, admeasuring one acre, of the property bearing No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi owned by Anil Sikand; (l) "the plaintiff and her daughter Rhea Sikand are entitled to 1/4th share each in the part A of the undivided 8, KG Marg property i.e. 1/8th of one acre of undivided 8, KG Marg, New Delhi as per the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2009 and hence, has filed the present suit for declaration of their title in the said property."; (m) the plaintiff wanted to amicably settle with the defendants and filed for pre-litigation mediation; in pre-litigation mediation hearing on 11th July, 2017, the defendant no.2 told the plaintiff that the husband of the plaintiff had executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 6th October, 2015 relinquishing his share in the property in favour of the defendants; (n) the plaintiff came to know about the Relinquishment Deed only on 11th July, 2017 and the claim
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.