$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 447/2024 HARMEET SINGH SALWAHA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanjay Agarwal and Ms. Eesha Sharma, Advs.

versus MRS TAJINDER KAUR & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Sharique Hussain, Adv. for BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. for D-1 to D-

7.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026 CS(OS) 447/2024

1. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that this is a suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs against their co-sharers defendants no. 1 to 3, qua the suit property i.e. property bearing no. 1/6-B, Jangpura-B, New Delhi [hereinafter, the ‘suit property’]

2. He submits that the suit property was allotted to the grandfather of the plaintiff namely, Late Ameer (Amir) Singh by the L&DO and subsequently, perpetual lease deed dated 20.03.1969 was executed by the L&DO in favour of Late Ameer Singh. The said lease was later registered on 02.09.1969. Late Ameer Singh was survived by his two sons, namely, Kirpal Singh and Gurdayal Singh.

3. He submits Kirpal Singh died on 12.05.1997 leaving behind four class I legal heirs i.e. – (i) Charanjit Kaur (wife); (ii) Harmeet Singh (son; plaintiff); (iii) Paramjeet Kaur (daughter) and (iv) Mrs. Gurpreet Kaur (Daughter). The other three legal heirs by way of registered relinquishment deed dated 26.03.2012 relinquished their rights and shares in the suit propertyin favour of the plaintiff.

4. Mr. Agarwal submits that defendant no. 4 has been claiming ownership over the ground floor suit property and the defendants no. 5 to 7 are his family members, therefore, they were impleaded as defendants. He submits that defendant no. 4 is now occupying the ground floor of the suit property.

5. It is, however, disputed by Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for defendants no. 1 to 7, that any third party rights have been created by defendants no. 1 to 3. He submits that defendants no. 1 to 3 are class I legal heirs of second son of Late Ameer Singh, namely, Late Sh. Gurdayal Singh. 6. On being queried bythe Court as to in what capacitydefendant no.4 is occupying the ground floor of the property, Mr. Yadav, on instructions, submits that defendant no.4 is only a licensee in the ground floor and no transaction of sale has been taken place between defendants no. 1 to 3 on one side and the defendant no. 4 on the other side. The statement is taken on record and the defendants are bound down to the same.

7. On further being queried by the Court, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff, as well as, Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for defendants no. 1 to 7, submits that the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 3 were having half share each in the suit property.

8. Mr. Yadav clarifies that prior to the filing of the suit the defendants no. 2 and 3, had relinquished their share in favour of defendant no.1 by way of registered relinquishment deed dated 02.05.2022, therefore, now the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 have half share each in the suit property.

9. Likewise, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff fairly concedes that the plaintiff has half share in the suit property. On instructions, he does not dispute that defendant no.1 now has remaining half share in the suit property.

10. Since the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the plaintiff, as well as, defendant no.1 are entitled to half share each in the suit property, no purpose will be served in putting the suit to trial and recording the evidence.

11. Hence, a preliminary decree is hereby passed, declaring that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 have half share each in the entire suit property.

12. A preliminarydecree be drawn accordingly.

13. The status quo order dated 28.05.2024 is made absolute during the pendency of the suit.

14. At this stage, Mr. Yadav submits that the matter may be referred to mediation to enable the parties to find an amicable way for division of the propertyby metes and bounds.

15. Mr. Agarwal submits that he