Allowed

Virender Parkash Jha v. Naraini Devi (Since Deceased) Thr Her Legal Heirs

Delhi HC7 Dec 2017RFA/853/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a consent appeal regarding a property partition. It corrected the dimensions of the room allocated to defendant no. 2 and clarified the color coding of the common passage area in the site plan to match the agreed proposal.

What did the court decide?

Corrected room dimensions for defendant no. 2 to 7.4'' x 4''; clarified common passage area color in site plan; directed fresh site plan.

Virender Parkash Jha Vs Naraini Devi (Since Deceased) Thr Her Legal… — Partition | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RFA 853/2017 & CM Nos. 36283/2017 (stay) & 36284/2017 (exemption)

¶4

VIRENDER PARKASH JHA

¶5

..... Appellant

¶6

Through: Mr. Arun Kr. Gupta, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

NARAINI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THR HER LEGAL HEIRS

¶9

..... Respondent

¶10

Through: Mr. Pranay Trivedi and Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocates.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R

¶12

% 07.12.2017

¶13

After arguments, this appeal is disposed of with the consent

¶14

order that as regards the proposal given by the defendant no.2 and as recorded at internal page 3 of the impugned order dated 30.5.2017, the defendant no.2 will get the room which will measure 7’.4’’X 4’ and not 7’.4’’X 8’.6’’ as given by the second last line of the impugned order dated 30.5.2017.

¶15

Accordingly, now a fresh site plan will be jointly prepared by the parties which will be the same as per Ex.Z-1 with the sole modification

¶16

RFA 853/2017 page 1 of 2

¶17

that the room of which area was 7’.4’’ X 9’.4’’, the area available to the defendant no.2 would be an area of 7’.4’’X 4’.

¶18

It is also not in dispute between the parties that the total passage and common area shown in yellow colour in the site plan Ex.Z-1 will be right till the end of the edge wall of the building and it is not as if that the common passage area adjoining the bath falling to the share of the appellant/plaintiff is to be of green colour falling to the defendant no. 2’s share. Learned counsel for the defendant no.2/respondent no.2 clarified that there is a mistake in the site plan filed as Ex.Z-1 with this appeal whereby the area adjoining the bath which is a common passage between the bath and the other area of the appellant/plaintiff is shown in green whereas it is in fact it should be shown in yellow colour in the original Ex.Z-1.

¶19

The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶20

Dasti to counsels for the parties.

¶21

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶22

DECEMBER 07, 2017 ib

¶23

RFA 853/2017

¶24

page 2 of 2

Virender Parkash Jha v. Naraini Devi (Since Deceased) Thr Her Legal Heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Parkash Jha v. Naraini Devi (Since Deceased) Thr Her Legal Heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Deepti Rawat & Others Vs Sh Shailendra Deopa & Others

Kcl Ltd. Vs Thomson Press (India) Ltd.

M/S Kcl Limited Vs M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.

Ashok Agarwal Vs Mrs.Krishna Agarwal & Ors.

Shobha Agarwal Vs Rajan Malik

Kamal Kant Kataria & Anr. Vs Rupendra Kataria & Ors.