* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 22.08.2024 Pronounced on: 01.10.2024 + CS(OS) 174/2018 & CC 26/2018 MRS. KUSUM TANEJA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr.Mahesh K. Chaudhary and Ms.Sushmita Chaudhary, Advs.

versus SHRI MANIK TANEJA AND OTHERS .....Defendants Through: Mr.Ashok Mahajan, Adv. for D-1.

Mr.Dhruv Mohan, Mr.Ishaan Aggarwal and Ms.Tarana Khan, Advs. for D-3 and 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree of partition of the suit property, that is, Plot No. FA-53 (Old) (New No. F-305), admeasuring 148.5 Sq. Yds., situated at Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). The plaintiff also prays for a decree of rendition of accounts against the defendant no.1 for the benefits enjoyed/rent received by the defendant no.1, and a decree of recovery of the amount.

Case of the Plaintiff

2. The plaintiff is the widow of late Shri Avinash Kumar Taneja, who unfortunately passed away on 23.07.2006. The defendant no.1 Signature Not Verified CS(OS) 174/2018 Page 1 of 19 Digitally Signed and the defendant no.2 are the sons of late Sh.Avinash Kumar Taneja and the plaintiff herein. The defendant nos.3 and 4 are the children of late Smt. Parbati, who the plaintiff claims had a half share in the suit property.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that late Sh.Lakhmi Chand Taneja, the grandfather of late Sh. Avinash Kumar Taneja, was the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. The suit property was purchased by late Sh. Lakhmi Chand Taneja in the year 1960 from M/s Bharat Builders & Colonizers, vide an Agreement to Sell. Later, a Sale Deed dated 17.04.1972 was executed by M/s Bharat Builders & Colonizers in favour of late Sh. Lakhmi Chand Taneja, which was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of Documents, Delhi.

4. The plaintiff further claims that during his lifetime, late Sh.Lakhmi Chand Taneja had executed a Will dated 04.02.1970, bequeathing the suit property to his daughter- Smt. Parbati and the husband of the plaintiff-late Sh.Avinash Kumar Taneja, in equal shares.

5. Sh. Lakhmi Chand Taneja unfortunately passed away in the year 1979.

6. Unfortunately, Sh. Avinash Kumar Taneja also passed away on 23.07.2006, leaving behind three Legal Heirs, that is, his widow, who is the plaintiff in the present suit, and his two sons, the defendant nos.

1 and 2 herein.

7. The plaintiff further claims that late Sh.Avinash Kumar Taneja and Smt.Parbati had entered into an oral partition of the suit property, dividing the property into two halves.

Signature Not Verified CS(OS) 174/2018 Page 2 of 19 Digitally Signed

8. The plaintiff claims that Smt.Parbati constructed a house in her portion/share of the suit property. The remaining portion of the plot, admeasuring 148.5 Sq. Yds., came to the share of late Sh.Avinash Kumar Taneja. He constructed a small room in his portion of the said plot, and in the remaining portion, there are temporary sheds and there is no ‘pucca construction’ in his portion of the said property.

9. The plaintiff further claims that Smt. Parbati also unfortunately passed away on 01.12.2005, leaving behind her three children as her Legal Heirs, that is, the defendant no.3, the defendant no.4, and late Sh. Madan Kumar @ Madan Lal Narula, who was unmarried and unfortunately passed away on 31.12.2016.

10. The plaintiff claims that late Sh. Madan Kumar @ Madan Lal Narula was unmarried, the defendant nos.3 and 4 were his only Legal Heirs and, therefore, the half portion of the entire plot of land fell to the share of the defendant nos.3 and 4.

11. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant no.1, being the elder son of the plaintiff, has been managing the suit property after the death of late Sh. Avinash Kumar Taneja, and had let out a portion of the same to a marble merchant at a monthly rent of Rs.65,000/-. It is further asserted that the defendant no.1 has also been carrying out his own business of property de