IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Mr. Om Dutt Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Renu Trehan & Anr. – Respondents
CS(OS) 116 of 2019 and Crl.M.A. 20751 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Partition - Property Dispute - Relinquishment Deed, Sale Deeds, and Pleadings - [CS(OS) 116/2019] - [Order dated 26.04.2019, Order dated 30.08.2019] - [INJUNCTION, LIMITATION ACT, 1963, CPC] - The court passed a preliminary decree of partition declaring the plaintiff's 2/3rd undivided share and the defendant no. 1's 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property. The court dismissed the defendant's contention that the suit was barred under Section 10 of the CPC and not barred by limitation. The court relied on various legal provisions and precedents to decide the case without the need for a trial.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a preliminary decree of partition for the suit property, claiming 2/3rd undivided share, while the defendant no. 1 claimed 1/3rd undivided share. The defendant no. 1's contention was that the suit was barred under Section 10 of the CPC and was not barred by limitation. The plaintiff relied on various documents including relinquishment deed, sale deeds, and pleadings to substantiate the respective undivided shares of the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respective undivided shares of the parties were clearly established through the documents filed by the defendant no. 1. The court dismissed the defendant's contention and passed a preliminary decree of partition in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues revolved around the partition of the suit property, the applicability of Section 10 of the CPC, and the limitation period for filing the suit for partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that if there is nothing to be put to trial and the lis can be decided on the undisputed facts, the court is not to unnecessarily put the parties through the rigmarole of trial. The court also emphasized that a trial is not necessary when the parties are not at issue with regard to any disputed questions of fact.
Final Decision: The court passed a preliminary decree of partition declaring the plaintiff's 2/3rd undivided share and the defendant no. 1's 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property. The court also referred the parties to mediation for an amicable resolution of the matter.
JUDGMENT
Sachin Datta, J. (Oral)
CS(OS) 116/2019 and IA No.12270/2023(for framing of issues)
1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the order dated 26.04.2019, wherein it was inter-alia recorded by this court as under:
"Broadly there is agreement that the Plaintiff owns two-third share in the suit property and Defendant No.1 owns one third share in the suit property."
2. Again, vide order dated 30.08.2019, it was inter-alia observed by this court as under:
"The shares of the parties have already been determined in the order dated 26.04.2019 in the ratio of 2/3: 1/3 for the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 respectively."
3. During the pendency of the present suit, the original defendant no.1/ Smt. Renu Trehan passed away on 19.01.2020; she was survived by two legal heirs, Mr. Dinesh Trehan (husband) and Ms. Suruchi Trehan (daughter). Vide order dated 08.01.2021, only the husband of Smt. Renu Trehan i.e. Sh. Dinesh Trehan was impleaded in the suit, in view of registered relinquishment deeds executed by Ms. Suruchi Trehan, whereby she had relinquished her rights in the suit property in favour of her father Sh. Dinesh Trehan. Thereafter, Sh. Dinesh Trehan also passed away on 02.06.2022. Vide order dated 18.10.2022, Ms. Suruchi Trehan, who is the only surviving legal representative of Sh. Dinesh Trehan, was impleaded in the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the undivided share of the parties in the suit property is not in dispute and requests that a preliminary decree of partition be passed declaring the respective shares of the parties. To substantiate his contention as regards the respective undivided share of the parties, reliance is sought to be placed on the relinquishment deed dated 24.02.2020, executed by Ms. Suruchi Trehan i.e. daughter of the late Renu Trehan/ original defendant no. 1 in favour of Sh. Dinesh Trehan, in which it has been expressly recorded as under:
"WHEREAS Smt. Renu Trehan W/o Shri Dinesh Trehan, R/o C-120, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060, was the absolute owner of 1/3rd undivided share in the Ground Floor of the Property bearing Municipal No.1767, Gali No.54, situated at Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005, measuring about 81 sq. Yds. (total) and which is bounded as under:
EAST: MAIN ROAD (HARDHIAN SINGH ROAD)
WEST: PORTIION OF THE SAID PROPERTY ALREADY SOLD
NORTH: PROPERTY NO.1766
SOUTH: GALI NO. 54
By virtue of the Sale Deed dated 29-07-2011, registered as document No.7268, in Book No.1, Volume No.14291, on pages 155 to 165, on 01- 08-2011, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Distt. III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
AND WHEREAS said Smt. Renu Trehan died on 19-01-2020 leaving behind the following, the Releasor & the Releasee, as her only legal heirs in respect of her said share in the said portion in the said property:
| NAME | RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DECEASED | |
| 1. | SHRI DINESH TREHAN | HUSBAND |
| 2. | MISS SURUCHI TREHAN | DAUGHTER |
AND WHEREAS the Releasor has agreed to release, relinquish, disclaim and give up all her rights, titles and interests in respect of her 1/2 undivided share in the said share in the said portion in the said property in favour of the Releasee absolutely and forever and without any monetary consideration
NOW THIS RELINQUISHMENT DEED WITNESSETH AS UNDER:
1. That the Releasor doth hereby release, relinquish, disclaim and give up all her rights, titles and interests in respect of her 1/2 undivided share in the said share in the said portion in the said property in favour of the Releasee absolutely and forever and without any monetary consideration.
2. That the Releasor assures the Releasee that her said share in the said share in the said portion in the said property hereby released is free from all kinds of encumbrances such as sale, gift, mortgage etc.
3. That the Releasor now admits that she has been left with no right, title and interest in respect of her share in the said share in the said portion in the said property and the Releasee has become the absolute owner
The court can pass a decree without trial when there are no disputed questions of fact and the lis can be decided on the undisputed facts.
The court established that unregistered documents affecting rights in immovable property are inadmissible in evidence, and that joint family properties are subject to partition among all rightful hei....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Central Act 39/2005, which entitles daughters to equal shares in ancestral properties. The court's decision was influenced by ....
The court ruled that an oral partition was established and the plaintiff cannot claim partial partition without including all relevant properties, adhering to heirs' rights under Hindu law.
A relinquishment deed executed by a legal heir is valid, thereby allowing partition of self-acquired property among designated heirs.
A partition deed long acted upon by all parties through possession and alienation is binding and cannot be reopened by descendants, especially when the original parties to the partition accepted the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to determine the devolution of property amongst the legal heirs, and the rejection of the appella....
A suit for partial partition is impermissible if not all joint family properties are included, and admissions made by parties are binding.
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.