Sugeeta Chhabra VS Harish Nayar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MUKTA GUPTA
Sugeeta Chhabra – Appellant
Versus
Harish Nayar – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Dua, Adv.
For the Defendant Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Ms. Mukta Gupta, J.—By this application the plaintiff seeks judgment on admission. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of the application contends that the defence set up by the defendant not being plausible, a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is required to be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought the relief of partition of the property bearing No. 41 Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’) by meets and bounds and further a decree of partition being the owner of 50% share in the movable assets owned by late Shri Ram Gopal Nayar, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction. The defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff has set up a defence that the deceased father left a Will and thus the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The Will allegedly left behind by the deceased father is neither signed nor executed by the deceased, nor witnessed. Further even as per the correspondence relied by the defendant the draft Will was sent by the counsel of the deceased father on 9th February, 2001, the deceased father survived till 29th October, 2009 and had not executed the Will. It is, thus, appare