ORDER

% 18.01.2024

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This matter has been taken up today since 17th January, 2024 was declared a holiday on account of Guru Gobind Singhji’s Gurpurab.

3. The matter has been heard for some time. The background of this case is that the Plaintiff-Anita Munjal and Defendant Nos. 3 to 5-Nirmala Saluja, Urmila Bhatia and Shashi Nagpal are siblings. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2- Vibhuti Jauhari and Ms. Trisha are the wife and daughter of the deceased brother of the Plaintiff – Late Mr. Lalit Munjal

4. The two properties in question (hereinafter, ‘suit properties’) are as follows:

i) Flat bearing no. 115-D, Bathlas Co-operative Group Housing, Society Ltd., Plot 43, I.P. Extension, Patpar Ganj, Delhi-92; ii) Plot bearing no. 91, Maulsari Road, DLF Qutab Complex, Phase-III, Gurugram, ad-measuring 490 sq. mts.

5. The Plaintiff’s brother passed away on 21st February, 2018. Property No. 1 above was allotted to him in 1992. Property no. 2 above was purchased through a registered sale deed on 8th January, 1998 jointly in the name of the brother and the mother. Thereafter, on 16th August, 2005 the mother gifted her share of the property i.e. 50% in favour of the son i.e. the brother of the Plaintiff. The present suit seeks partition of these two suit properties.

6. The case of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the widow and the daughter of the deceased brother is that the suit itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed/rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

7. The submission of Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, ld. Senior Counsel is that the suit is completely barred in law, inasmuch as the allegation that the suit properties were purchased by the brother out of the joint family funds is a bare allegation, without any support either from the pleadings or from the documents. According to ld. Senior Counsel, such bare allegations cannot form the basis of a suit for partition.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Samrat Nigam, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff has sufficient evidence to prove that the brother purchased the suit properties out of the funds left behind by the father, which is disputed. On a query from the Court as to what is the evidence on this aspect, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the same would be revealed from the evidence of the Defendant themselves.

9. The overall conspectus of this case is that the Plaintiff is a U.S. resident. As per Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are not raising any claims in respect of the properties. Defendant No.5 is based out of Delhi, also supports the claim of the Plaintiff, but no written statement has been filed by her.

10. After hearing some submissions, the Court notes that the Defendant No.2, who was a minor when the suit was filed, has now attained majority, and she is approximately 20 years old. The Court would like to interact with the parties before proceeding further in this matter.

11. Accordingly, let the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1, Defendant No.2 as also Defendant No.5 appear either physically or virtually in Court on the next date of hearing at 4:00 p.m.

12. The ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall also seek instructions regarding whether the Plaintiff still objects to the above two suit properties being used for commercial or rental purposes, so that they can generate some income for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, during the pendency of the present suit. List on 13th March, 2024 at 4:00 p.m.

13. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. JANUARY 18, 2024 Rahul/dn CS(OS) 4/2020