Disposed

Ghanshyam Khohar v. Bhagwati Devi & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Dec 2018CS(OS)/366/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a suit for partition of property where the plaintiff claimed succession through intestacy and respondents claimed title under a will. Pending adjudication of the probate petition filed by respondents regarding the will's validity, the Court disposed of the suit with liberty to revive it if the plaintiff succeeds in the probate case.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of with liberty to the plaintiff to revive it in the event of succeeding in the pending probate case.

Ghanshyam Khohar Vs Bhagwati Devi & Ors. — Partition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~O-20

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 366/2018 & I.A.9864/2018, 11833/2018, 16495/2018

¶4

GHANSHYAM KHOHAR ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Prashant Bhardwaj, Mr.Gajanand Kirodiwal, Ms.Anuraj Tirthankar, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

BHAGWATI DEVI & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Manu Nayar, Ms.Meenakshi Bhatia, Ms.Maitreyee Joshi, Ms.Radhika Arora, Advocates for defendants No.1 and 2. Mr.Rohit Bansal, Advocate for defendants No.3, 7 and 8.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶8

O R D E R % 10.12.2018 I.A.9864/2018, 11833/2018

¶9

The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition of property bearing No.B38, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi on the averments that Satya Deo Gupta, owner of property bearing No. B-38, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi110017, died intestate on 14^th April, 2016 and the suit property devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants in equal shares according to the law of succession.

¶10

Defendants No.1 and 2 are contesting this suit on the ground that late Satya Deo Gupta left behind a registered will dated 28^th October, 2014 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and they are entitled to the possession of the suit property from the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed probate petition bearing PC No.31/2018 titled as Madan Mohan v. State for seeking

¶11

Letters of Administration in respect of the will dated 28^th October, 2014 which is pending before Dr. Ajay Gulati, Additional District Judge - 02 (South), Saket Courts and listed on 21^st January, 2019. Defendants No.1 and 2 have instituted a civil suit bearing C.S. SCJ/823/2018 titled as Madan Mohan v. Ghanshyam Khohar against the plaintiff for seeking mandatory injunction for vacation of the suit property and for mesne profits which is pending in the Court of Ms.Mona Tardi Kerketta, JSCC cum ASCJ cum GJ (South), Saket Courts and listed on 08^th January, 2019.

¶12

The plaintiff is seeking interim injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit property without due process of law. 4. Learned counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 submit that defendants No.1 and 2 have invoked the due process of law by filing a suit for mandatory injunction and mesne profits against the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 will not dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law already invoked by them.

¶13

In view of the statement of defendants No.1 and 2, the plaintiff’s apprehension against dispossession from the suit property without due process of law is unwarranted.

¶14

In view of the legal proceedings initiated by defendants No.1 and 2, the interim order dated 30^th July, 2018 is modified and the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the title and possession of the suit property till any order is passed in the aforesaid legal proceedings initiated by defendants No.1 and 2. It is clarified that if any order is passed in the legal proceedings initiated by defendants No.1 and 2 against plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 would be at liberty to execute the same in accordance with law.

¶15

Learned counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 submits that the plaintiff

¶16

be directed to pay the interim mesne profits in respect of the suit property. Since defendants No.1 and 2 have filed a civil suit claiming mesne profits, no order is warranted in these proceedings.

¶17

Both the applications are disposed of in the above terms. CS(OS) 366/2018 & I.A.16495/2018

¶18

The following issues arise for consideration in this suit and are hereby framed:

¶19

(i) Whether late Satya Deo Gupta left behind a legal and valid will dated 28^th October, 2014? OPD1/2

¶20

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the suit property? If so, what are the shares of the respective parties in the suit property? OPP

¶21

(iii) Relief.

¶22

The first issue as to whether the deceased left behind a will dated 28^th October, 2014 is pending adjudication before the Court of Additional District Judge, Saket in Probate Case No.31/2018 and the finding of the Probate Court on this issue shall be binding on both the parties. In that view of the matter, learned counsels for the parties agree that this suit cannot proceed till the adjudication of the Probate Case No.31/2018.

¶23

This suit is disposed of with liberty to the plaintiff to revive it in the event of the plaintiff’s succeeding in Probate Case No.31/2018. The pending application is disposed of.

¶24

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

¶25

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶26

DECEMBER 10, 2018 dk

Ghanshyam Khohar v. Bhagwati Devi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Khohar v. Bhagwati Devi & Ors.

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

Shiv Charan Vs Devi Charan & Ors.

Brij Lata & Ors. Vs Devi Charan & Ors.

Atul Kumar Verma Vs Kamlesh Verma & Ors.

Mrs Sangeeta Mathur & Others Vs Mr Nirvesh Bahadur Mathur & Others

Shri Uma Shankar & Anr. Vs Shri Anand Prakash

Master Rayann Thru His Mother Mrs. Ridhima Juneja Vs P.N. Juneja & Sons HUF

Girish Mahant Vs Rajeev Kumar Lohia & Anr.

Jsl Limited Vs M/S Ariba India Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.

Luxottica Group S.P.A Vs M/S Sham Trading Co. & Ors.

Naresh Paul & Another Vs Surinder Pal & Ors.

M/S Sandberry Hotel Vs Mrs. Saroj Devi Sehrawat

Shri Surendra Nath Pasricha Vs Smt Kamla Pasricha and Ors.

Arjun Kohli Vs Vishal Prajapati

Ohlone Press Llc & Anr. Vs Ved Prakash Sharma Trading as Veeom Healthcare