$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 7^th October, 2024 Date of Decision: 10^th December, 2024 + CS(OS) 806/2024 & I.A. 41552/2024, I.A. 41553/2024 SMT. SAMTA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vedant, Advocate (Through VC)

versus SH. SUDEEPAK KUMAR RAJAN AND ORS .....Defendants Through: None CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The present suit has been filed seeking a decree of partition of the house property i.e., built up property bearing House H.No.500/2-B, Block- 30, 60 Ft. Road, Street No.6 & 7, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi-110032 admeasuring 200 sq. yards (‘suit property’). The suit also seeks a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants from creating any third-party interest in the suit property.

1.1. It is stated in the plaint that the suit property was purchased by Sh. Daulat Ram (‘deceased’) in 1990s. It is stated that Sh. Daulat Ram expired on 12.03.2023 and he died intestate.

1.2. It is stated that plaintiff is the grand-daughter of Sh. Daulat Ram. Defendant no. 1 is the father of the plaintiff and son of Sh. Daulat Ram. Defendant no. 6 is the brother of the plaintiff and son of defendant no. 1.

Signature Not Verified Defendant nos. 2 to 4 are other sons of late Sh. Daulat Ram and thus uncles of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 5 is the wife of late Sh. Daulat Ram and the grandmother of the plaintiff.

1.3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming 1/15^th share in the suit property on the plea that the suit property was a joint Hindu family property as it was purchased from joint Hindu family funds.

Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the plaintiff

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff verily believes that the suit property was purchased by late Sh. Daulat Ram from joint Hindu family funds in 90’s, therefore, the said property is a joint Hindu family property.

2.1. He states that there are matrimonial disputes pending between the plaintiff’s parents and the suit property was purchased by late Sh. Daulat Ram prior to the marriage of the parents of the plaintiff.

2.2. He fairly states that the plaintiff doesn’t have in her possession any documents to substantiate the oral plea that the suit property is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property; however, she has been orally informed that indeed the property is an HUF property.

2.3. He states that the suit property was also the matrimonial home of the plaintiff’s mother and the mother’s income has also been used in reconstruction of the entire suit property in the mid-year of 2001. He states that upon these pleas, the present suit has been filed seeking partition of the suit property as a HUF property.

2.4. He states that there is no dispute that the suit property stands in the individual name of late Sh. Daulat Ram.

2.5. He states that the plaintiff is not aware as regards to the name of the Signature Not Verified HUF or whether any taxing entity by the name of the said HUF exists.

2.6. He further contends that the suit property was in the individual name of late Sh. Daulat Ram and he has died intestate, however, as the suit property is ancestral, therefore, the plaintiff herein has rights by birth in the suit property.

Findings and Analysis

3. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

4. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking 1/15^th share in the suit property standing in the name of late Sh. Daulat Ram on the plea that the suit property was purchased by him from joint Hindu family funds. The relevant pleading in the plaint is at paragraph ‘4’ and paragraph ‘18’ of the plaint, which reads as under:-

“4. That the grandfather of the plaintiff and father of defendants no. 1 to 4 and husband of defendant no.5 namely Late Sh. Daulat Ram purchased the suit property and maintained the same as Hindu joint family property in 90’s from joint Hindu family funds, the suit property comprises of four shops at ground f