RFA (OS) No.87/2015 Page 1 of 8

$~15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

RFA(OS) 87/2015

KULBHUSHAN DANIA

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr.Sumit Kumar Khatri, Advocate

versus

ASHOK KUMAR DANIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Represented by:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.19097/2015

For the reasons stated in the application delay of 8 days in filing the

appeal is condoned.

RFA (OS) No.87/2015

1.

The appeal is listed for preliminary hearing today and we have drawn

attention of learned counsel for the appellant to the provision of Order 41

Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, informing learned counsel

that as per practice directions issued by this Court the record of CS (OS)

No.1117/2008 has been sent by the Registry to this Court along with the

appeal. We have asked learned counsel whether a date be fixed for hearing

2015:DHC:7516-DB

RFA (OS) No.87/2015 Page 2 of 8

the appellant or dispense with said requirement and hear the appeal today

itself. Learned counsel says that he would like to argue the appeal for

admission today itself. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel in the

appeal and have perused the record of the suit.

2.

Appellant was the plaintiff. He sought partition of House No.7 built

on part of Khasra No.445, New Hari Nagar, Mandawali; New No.7,

Dayanand Block, Shakarpur Extension, Delhi-110092. He also sought an

injunction against the defendant restraining them from parting with

possession of a tenanted premises F-14, Vijay Block, Vikas Marg

wherefrom business under the name M/s.Dania Photographs was being

carried on.

3.

Defendant No.1 in the suit is the brother of the appellant. Defendant

No.2 is his father.

4.

Case pleaded in the plaint is that to defendant No.2 and his deceased

wife Sheela, were born two sons : the plaintiff and defendant No.1; and two

daughters named Vijay Lakshmi and Namita. It is pleaded that the father

was a photographer by profession and was working with M/s.Mahattas’ Co.

in Connaught Place as a dark room photo portrait printer, and to augment his

income he used to devote himself as a dark room photograph printer at his

house. The plaintiff used to help the father. That the father acquired a plot

of land ad-measuring 200 square yards comprised in Khasra No.445,

Mandavali Fazalpur which bears No.7, Dayanand Block, Shakarpur for a

sum of `2,700/- on which a dwelling unit was constructed in the year 1969

and the family shifted to the said premises. It is pleaded that motivated by

the sister Vijay Laxmi the plaintiff acquired a shop bearing No.D-4/495A,

Aruna Park, Shakarpur as a tenant, but tenancy was in the name of the

2015:DHC:7516-DB

RFA (OS) No.87/2015 Page 3 of 8

father, however it was the plaintiff who was carrying on the business from

the shop. It is pleaded that the appellant managed the shop till August, 1974

when he joined service and that the business at the shop was managed by the

father and attendants. It is pleaded that shop at F-14, Vijay Block, Vikas

Marg, Shakarpur Extension, though taken on rent by the brother, was

actually taken on rent by the appellant who invested his income for setting

up the shop. It is pleaded that since 1980 the father left employment with

Mahattas and the father and the brother of the plaintiff devoted themselves

full time to the business. It is pleaded that in the name of defendant No.1

the appellant submitted an application to DDA pursuant whereto a LIG flat

was allotted. Pleading that defendant No.1 shifted to Maitri Apartments and

that thereafter the appellant lived with his parents in