$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 7^th December 2021

Date of decision: 22^nd December, 2021

+

C.R.P. 240/2017 & CM APPLs.39489/2017, 11137/2018

KRISHAN KUMAR MEHRA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and

Ms.

Sunita

Saxena,

Advocates.

(M:9818800830)

versus

ROOP LALL MEHRA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.

Vishwa

Bhushan

Arya,

Advocate. (M:8920561855)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1.

The present petition challenges the impugned judgment and order

dated 23^rd August, 2017, passed by the Ld. ADJ-04 (South East), Saket

(hereinafter“Trial Court”) in Civil Suit No. 208039/2016 titled Shir

Krishna Kumar Mehra v Shri Roop Lall Mehra by which the application

filed by the Respondent No.2/Maj. Prem Kumar Mehta/Defendant No.2

(hereinafter “Defendant No.2”) seeking leave to deposit 1/5^th share of the

sale proceeds of the Defendant No.1 was dismissed. The said application

was

duly

supported

by

the

Petitioner

Sh.

Krishna

Kumar

Mehra/Plaintiff/Petitioner (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Respondent

No.3/ Defendant No.3 (hereinafter “Defendant No.3”) & Respondent No.4/

Defendant No.4 (hereinafter “Defendant No.4”). The only contesting party

is Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1/Sh. Roop Lall Mehra (hereinafter

“Defendant No.1”).

2021:DHC:4337

Facts

2. The parties to the present revision petition are four sons and one

daughter of Late Shri. Pyare Lall Mehra, who passed away on 1^st

November, 2008. Late Shri. Pyare Lall Mehra was the absolute owner of

property bearing No. J-17, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, admeasuring

279 sq. yards (hereinafter “suit property”). The suit property has a ground

floor, first and half of the second floor constructed. As on date, the

possession of the ground floor is with Defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 is

in possession of the first floor and his son and his family are living on the

second floor. In effect, therefore, the first and second floor are in the

possession of and being enjoyed by Defendant No.1.

3.

The suit for partition being CS(OS) No.395 of 2009 titled Krishan

Kumar Mehra v. Shri Roop Lall Mehra & Ors., was filed by the

Petitioner/Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) seeking partition and rendition

of accounts in respect of properties belonging to his father including

movable and immovable property. In this suit, a preliminary decree was

passed on 21^st December, 2009, by a ld. Single Judge of this Court in the

following terms:

2021:DHC:4337

4. The Court had, vide the same order, appointed a Local Commissioner

to inspect the suit property and submit a report as to whether the suit

property can be partitioned by metes and bounds. However, the Local

Commissioner reported that a physical metes and bounds partition would

not be possible. Accordingly, the High Court directed that an inter-se

bidding be conducted between the parties.

5.

In the inter-se bidding, sealed covers were stated to have been placed

by the parties before the Local Commissioner and Defendant No.2 offered

the highest price of Rs.10,40,00,000/-. Subsequently, an application bearing

IA No.700/2012 was filed by Defendant No.2 in CS (OS) 395/2009 seeking

permission to file a compromise agreement between Plaintiff and

Defendant No.2 to 4, to jointly acquire the suit property from Defendant

No.2. In this application, Defendant No.2 sought to satisfy his payment

obligation of the bid amount by deposit of only 1/5^th share, being the share

of Defendant No.1, stating that the other parties being Plaintiff and

Defendant Nos.3 to 4 had agreed to not claim their shares in lieu of

retaining joint possession of the suit property. The said application was

dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12^th

January 2012 on the ground that all parties had not consented to the

compromise agreement. Therefore, the High Court direc