The court held that the mutation of property must be executed according to the final decree of partition without imposing charges from unrelated parties, protecting the rights of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

CM APPL. 52813/2019 (for condonation of delay)

2. This is an application for condonation of 54 days' delay in filing the counter affidavit. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7452/2019, CM APPLs. 31038/2019 (for stay), & 26100/2020 (for vacation of stay)

3. The Petitioners in the present case, along with Respondent No.6 are 50% owners of property bearing No.13, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter, "suit property"). The other 50% is owned by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 i.e., Mr. Gautam Tahilramani and Mr. George R Tahilramani. The case of the Petitioners is that the L&DO is not mutating the suit property in their name, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

4. This case has a long and chequered history. Without going into too many historical facts, suffice it to say, that the Petitioners and Respondent No. 6 are the legal heirs/representatives of Late Mr. H. B. Hingorani, who is the original owner of the suit property. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the legal heirs of Late Mrs. Sati Ramchand Tahilramani, who is the daughter of Late Mr. H. B. Hingorani. Sometime in 1998, Late Mrs. Sati Ramchand Tahilramani is alleged to have entered into a collaboration agreement with one M/s Pushpa Builders to raise construction upon the entire suit property. M/s Pushpa Builders in turn put Kotak Mahindra Bank (earlier known as ING Vysysa Bank) in possession of the ground floor of the suit property. Thus, a long drawn litigation ensued between the builder, the bank and all the legal heirs of the two owners.

5. A suit came to be filed by the Petitioners against the builders and various other Defendants seeking delivery of the legacy/share in the suit property as also partition, injunctions and rendition of accounts. A final decree of partition was recorded in the said suit on 24th April, 2008 in Suit No.364/2004 titled Dr. Vikram Hingorani & Ors. v. Mr. Mohan Hingorani & Ors., wherein the following agreement was arrived at:

"(a) That the share of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the suit land on which the superstructure shall be as follows:

The Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 = 1/6 share

The Plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 = 1/6 share

The Defendant No. 1 = 1/6 share

The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 = 1/2 share

(b) That the existing superstructure has been partitioned by metes and bounds as under:

Defendant No. 2 and 3: Basement, Second Floor, Terrance with terrace rights upto the sky

Defendant No.1: A and B Type Flats on the First Floor

Plaintiff No.1: D Type Flat on First Floor.

Plaintiff No.2: B Type Flat on Ground Floor

Plaintiff No.3: D Type Flat on Ground Floor

Plaintiff No.4: C Type Flat on First Floor

Plaintiff No.5: C Type Flat on Ground Floor

Plaintiff No.6: A Type Flat on Ground Floor

(c) That the open spaces in the front and rear at the ground floor and the driveways will be jointly owned by the Plaintiffs only, and do not constitute the common areas of the building. The Defendant No.2 and 3 shall have the right to access their portion of the suit property from the main gate and through the side entrance on the ground floor without any hindrance. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 shall have the right to have tanks/satellite/dish/cable TV/antenna etc installed on the terrace and shall have access thereto without any hindrance for the purpose of installation, replacement and maintenance of such Items only.

(d) That should the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 wish to construct, the terrace, the Plaintiffs will have no objection to such construction subject to such construction being legally permissible and subject to such construction not causing any damage whatsoever to the building and/or the portions of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 so partitioned by metes and bounds. In case of such construction, the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 will, at their cos