* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 27^th FEBRUARY, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF:

+ CS(OS) 361/2016 MRS JYOTSNA BHATIA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate, Mr.

Amolak Singh, Mr. Nishil Kaushal, Advocates versus MR ARUN KHOSLA & ORS .....Defendants Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

JUDGMENT

I.A. 14141/2016

1. This application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been filed on behalf of the Defendants for rejection of the Plaint.

2. The present Suit is one for partition and separate possession of all the residential property comprised in House No. B-98, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Suit Property’) and agricultural land measuring about 118 Kanals 12 Marlas of agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 3/20, 3/21, 4/16, 4/24, 4/25, 14/4 14/5, 14/6 14/7, 14/14, 14/15 14/16 15/1, 15/10, 15/11, 15/20 as recorded in Jamabandi dated 29.09.1972 and about 76 Kanals 16 Marlas of agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 14/13, 14/17, 14/18, 14/23, 14/24, 25/1, 20/1, 21/3, 21/4, 21/5 as recorded in Jamabandi dated 24.05.1977 both parcels are in Village Haripura, Tehsil Narwana, District- Kaithal, (now Jind), Haryana.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the father of the Plaintiff – Mr. Bhim Signature Not Verified CS(OS) 361/2016 Page 1 of 10 Digitally Signed Sen Khosla, who owned the above mentioned properties, passed away on 19.03.1986 leaving behind his wife – Ms. Laj Khosla, two sons - Mr. Randhir Khosla (Defendant No.2 herien) & Mr. Arun Khosla (Defendant No.1 herien), and one daughter - Mrs. Jyotsna Bhatia (the Plaintiff herein). It is the case of the Plaintiff that on the death of Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla the suit properties divulged on the legal heirs of Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla as Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla died intestate. It is stated that at the time of the demise of Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla, Defendant No.1 along with Defendant No.3 were staying on the first floor of the Suit Property and Defendant No.2 along with his wife, three daughters and mother were staying on the ground floor. It is stated that the mother of the Plaintiff passed away on 29.04.2000 and the Plaintiff participated in the last rites of her mother at the suit property and after the last rites, though the Defendants though acknowledged 1/3rd share of the Plaintiff in the Suit Property but since Defendant No.2 was under huge debts, partition of the Suit Property was not sought by the parties and the same was deferred. It is stated that the Plaintiff shifted to Delhi with her family in 2002. It is stated that since the Plaintiff did not have any permanent place over her head, the Plaintiff asked for demarcation of her share in the Suit Property from Defendants No.1 & 2. It is stated that Defendant No.1 sought some time for demarcation and partition of Plaintiff’s share and Defendant No.2 represented to the Plaintiff that Defendant No.2 is facing acute financial distress and in order to bail out Defendant No.2, Defendant No.1 agreed to extend financial assistance to Defendant No.2 subject to Defendant No.2 surrendering his rights in favour of Defendant No.1. It is stated that Defendant No.1 represented to the Plaintiff that on account of his daughter’s marriage he is not in a position to Signature Not Verified CS(OS) 361/2016 Page 2 of 10 Digitally Signed demarcate the share in the suit property and requested the Plaintiff to accommodate him for some more time and in lieu of this accommodation, the Defendant No.1 promised to the Plaintiff to construct the entire first floor from his own funds and hand it over to the Plaintiff for her occupation. It is stated that since Defendants No.1 & 2 are brothers, the Plaintiff relented. Defendants No.1 & 2 both agreed that till the Plaintiff is given her separate share in the Suit Property, the Plaintiff can continue to have access to one room on the ground floor. It is stated that in 2003, around the marriage of the daughter of the Defendant No.1, Def