Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 1019
2024 DHC 7101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta & Others - Plaintiffs
Versus
Sh. Ashok Jain & Others - Defendants
CS(OS) 1300 of 1992, I.A. 155 of 2020, I.A. 2045 of 2021, I.A. 13922 of 2022, CS(OS) 2069 of 1998
Decided On : 17-09-2024
Advocates Appeared :
For the Plaintiff : Mr Sameer Vashisht, Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Mr Vedansh Vashisht and Mr Aman Singh, Advs.
For the Defendant : Mr Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv., with Ms Sumati Anand and Mr. Sandesh Kumar, Advs.
For Rajeshwar Nath Gupta and Ors.: Mr Sameer Vashisht, Ms Harshita Nathrani, Mr Vedansh Vashisht and Mr Aman Singh, Advs. For Ashok Jain and Ors.: Mr Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Ms Sumati Anand and Mr Sandesh Kumar, Advs.
The court established that the property was effectively partitioned between the parties, with the purdah wall serving as a partition, despite claims of it being undivided.
Headnote:(A) Perpetual Lease Deed dated 15.02.1951 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Suit for declaration and injunction regarding partition of property - The court found that the property was capable of partition and had been effectively partitioned between the parties as per the Agreements to Sell dated 16.09.1983, with distinct portions assigned to each family. The purdah wall constructed by one family was deemed a partition wall, and the court ruled against the claim of the other family that the property was undivided. (Paras 1, 46, 222, 230)
(B) The court emphasized that the absence of explicit terms in the lease prohibiting division, alongside the conduct of the parties, indicated a clear intent to partition the property. (Paras 134, 140, 220)
(C) The court dismissed the suit filed by one family and decreed the suit of the other family, confirming their ownership of the North-Eastern portion of the property. (Paras 227, 230)
Facts of the case:
The Gupta family and Jain family entered into Agreements to Sell for the property at 4 Cavalry Lines, with disputes arising over the partition and construction of a wall. The Gupta family claimed the property was undivided, while the Jain family asserted ownership of the North-Eastern half.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the property was capable of partition and had been effectively partitioned, with the purdah wall serving as a partition.
Issues: The main issues included whether the property was capable of partition, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of ownership, and whether there was concealment of material facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the property was effectively partitioned as per the Agreements to Sell, and the purdah wall was a partition wall.
Result: The suit filed by the Gupta family was dismissed, while the Jain family's suit was decreed.
JUDGMENT :
Jasmeet Singh, J.
1. Since both the suits are interconnected between the same parties and have been consolidated vide order dated 14.10.1997, common evidence has been led and have been heard together; hence, both the suits are being decided by this common judgment.
2. In CS (OS) 1300/1992, plaintiff No. 1 is Rajeshwar Nath Gupta, plaintiff No. 2 is Raghavender Nath Gupta, plaintiff No. 3 is Ravinder Nath Gupta and plaintiff No. 4 is Rajender Nath Gupta. For the sake of convenience, they are collectively referred to as “Gupta family”. Defendant No. 1 is Ashok Jain, Defendant No. 2 is Smt. Sheelawati and Defendant No. 3 is Smt. Prabha Jain. For the sake of convenience, they are collectively referred to as “Jain family”.
3. Suit bearing CS(OS) 1300/1992 is filed by the Gupta family, who seeks the following prayers:-
“I) declaration that the suit property bearing No. 4, Cavalry Lines, comprising land admeasuring 3504.57 sq. metres, is incapable of being partitioned and, in any case, cannot be partitioned under the terms of perpetual lease of the land underneath the aforesaid entire property.
In the ALTERNATIVE, it may he declared by this Hon'ble Court that there can be no partition of the property in suit by metes and bounds or otherwise unless a partition is effected either with mutual consent or through the court in a suit for partition, if any, filed; and
II) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from raising any partition wall or any other construction in the suit property, and from causing any obstruction/ annoyance/ nuisance or mischief in the common use and enjoyment of the aforesaid spaces including ENTRY and EXIT gates, the front lawn, the front verandah, the rear verandah, the rear lawn and driveways/ passages/ pathways and from spoiling and damaging the environment and beauty, nature and character of oneness of the suit property; be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.”
4. Brief facts as per the plaint (CS(OS) 1300/1992) are set out below:-
5. Mr. John Cecil Roberts was the perpetual lessee of a plot of land bearing No. 4, measuring 3504.57 sq. metres (0.866 acres) situated in Cavalry Lines, Mall Road, Civil Lines, Delhi (“suit property”) under the President of India through the Military Estate Officer vide a Perpetual Lease Deed dated 15.02.1951 which was duly registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi as document No. 1737 entered in Additional Book No. I, Volume No. 186 on pages 161 to 163 on 02.05.1951. Mr Roberts passed away in the year 1956-57 leaving a Will dated 22.06.1949 which was filed with the Probate Registry at the High Court of Justice at London.
6. Subsequently, Smt. Onela Chatterjee was appointed as the Administrator of Mr. Roberts' estate by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab, Circuit Bench at New Delhi in Probate Case No. 2-D of 1957. As the appointed Administrator, Smt. Chatterjee was also authorized by the Will's legatees to act as their attorney for the purpose of transferring and conveying the suit property, including any buildings, structures, and outhouses on it.
7. Smt. Onela Chatterjee vide Sale Deed dated 29.11.1960 transferred the suit property alongwith superstructure on it, in favour of Raisahib Pt. Daulat Ram Kalia s/o Late Pandit Bal Mukand Kalia and Mrs. Vidya Rani Kalia w/o Raisahib Pt. Daulat Ram Kalia which was duly registered with the Sub Registrar Delhi vide Document No. 5113 entered in additional book No. l volume No. 563 page 197-208 on 12.12.1960.
8. Smt. Vidya Rani Kalia died intestate on 17.02.1974 leaving behind her husband, two daughters and two sons. On the death of Ms Kalia, the suit property was duly mutated in the name of Pt. Daulat Ram Kalia and the two daughters and two sons in the records of Military Estate Officer, Delhi Circle vide letter dated 09.12.1981. Raisahib Pt. Daulat Ram Kalia also died intestate on 02.12.1981 leaving behind the two sons and two daughters as his legal heirs. Subsequently, the suit pr
