Suraj Bhan Arya vs Pooran Chand Arya

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Suraj Bhan Arya – Appellant
Versus
Pooran Chand Arya – Respondent

Table of Content
1. family arrangement for property division. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. unauthorized construction aggravating the dispute. (Para 4 , 5)
3. defendants' objections to plaintiff's claims. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. claims regarding property ownership and co-ownership. (Para 7 , 8 , 15 , 18 , 19)
5. issues framed for determination. (Para 20 , 21)
6. determining partition validity and effects. (Para 27 , 28)
7. acceptance of oral partition under hindu law. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. limitation period analysis. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
9. final judgment on partition and court orders. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. A family litigation was commenced by the plaintiff Sh. Suraj Bhan Arya, for Partition, Declaration and Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against his three brothers Sh. Pooran Chand Arya, Sh. Kishan Singh Arya, Sh. Lakhan Singh Arya, sister Smt. Murti Devi and mother Smt. Ramkali who are the defendants in respect of house bearing no. 18, Masihgarh, New Delhi-110025 constructed on a plot of 600 sq. yards of which the father Late Sh. Kishan Lal was the exclusive owner and in possession.

2. The plaintiff and the defendants were married and happily living toget

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNASuraj Bhan Arya – AppellantVersusPooran Chand Arya – Respondent

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Suraj Bhan Arya – Appellant
Versus
Pooran Chand Arya – Respondent