Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar Seniaray v. Pushpa Rani & Others

Delhi HC19 Feb 2019CS(OS)/2667/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order decided a partition suit regarding properties in New Delhi. The court accepted undertakings from Defendant No.4 to retain one shop and receive compensation via relinquishment of another house share. The plaintiff and other defendants were directed to execute relinquishment deeds, deposit funds with the registry, and sign the order.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed; parties directed to execute relinquishment deeds, deposit Rs. 11,273,021 with Registry, and sign order sheet.

Pradeep Kumar Seniaray Vs Pushpa Rani & Others — Partition | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

#10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶4

- CS(OS) 2667/2015 & CRL.M.A. 9696/2018, I.A. 18398/2015, I.A. 11465-11466/2017, I.A. 14465-14466/2017, I.A. 7038/2018, I.A. 2542/2019

¶5

PRADEEP KUMAR SENIAR	AY ..... Plaintiff
Through versus	Ms. Amita Gupta with Ms. Kinjal Shrivastava, Advocates with Plaintiff in person.
PUSHPA RANI & OTHERS	..... Defendants
Through	Mr. Jagat Siingh with Ms. E.J.D.
	Ahuja, Advocates for D-4. D-4 in
	person.
	Defendant nos.1 to 3 and 5 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶7

O R D E R % 19.02.2019

¶8

Present suit has been filed for partition by the plaintiff/brother.

¶9

It is pertinent to mention that on 4^th September, 2017 a preliminary decree was passed by this Court declaring that the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 5 are entitled to one-sixth share each in the properties bearing no. 5/189, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi and Shop No. A-5/5, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.

¶10

Thereafter, applications were filed by defendant no.4 to seek recall of the preliminary decree.

¶11

On the last date of hearing, the Court had passed the following order:-

¶12

“Today, learned counsel for defendant No.4, on instructions of defendant No.4, who is personally present in Court, states that if the defendant No.4 is allowed to retain the shop No.5, A- 5, Paschim Vihar, DDA Market, New Delhi, the said defendant would have no objection to the Sunder Vihar House No.5/189, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi-110087 being sold and the sale proceeds being equally divided between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5. He also states that the value of the shop at the circle rate prevalent today be adjusted against his share in the Sunder Vihar House property. He further undertakes to this Court that as and when a suitable purchaser is located for the aforesaid house, he shall vacate the said premises without any demur.

¶13

The statements/undertakings given by the defendant No.4 are accepted by this Court and the defendant No.4 is held bound by the same.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid undertakings, the plaintiff as well as defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 5 state that they have no objection if an inter se bidding is held of the aforesaid Sunder Vihar house property.

¶15

It is made clear that the parties shall be entitled to bid either for themselves or for third parties.

¶16

List the matter for inter se bidding between the parties on 19^th February, 2019.”

¶17

Today, learned counsel for plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 & 5,who are personally present, state that while the circle rate of Shop No. A-5/5, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi is Rs. 37,26,979/-, the market value of the House No. 5/189, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi is Rs. 9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crore).

¶18

Learned counsel for defendant no. 4, on instruction of defendant no. 4,who is personally present in Court, states that defendant no. 4 is ready to accept the aforesaid valuation. He also states that the value of the Shop at

¶19

the circle rate be adjusted against his share in Sunder Vihar house and the balance amount of Rs. 1,12,73,021/- be paid to defendant no. 4. He further prays that the defendant no. 4 be granted eight weeks to hand over vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 and 5.

¶20

The aforesaid statements and undertakings are accepted by this Court and parties are held bound by the same.

¶21

It is directed that the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 and 5 shall simultaneously execute the relinquishment deed with regard to the Shop No. A-5/5, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi in favour of defendant no. 4 and defendant no. 4 shall execute the relinquishment deed with regard to the House No. 5/189, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 and 5 .

¶22

Parties state that they would amicably partition the movable properties amongst themselves within eight weeks.

¶23

Since the relationship between the parties is a bit strained, the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 to 3 and 5 shall deposit the amount of Rs. 1,12,73,021/- with the Registry of this Court and the keys of the suit premises shall also be deposited with the Registry of this Court within the aforesaid stipulated period. It is made clear that upon receipt of Rs. 1,12,73,021/-, the defendant no. 4 shall have no right, title or interest in the suit property and in the event he asserts any right in the suit property in future, he shall be liable for contempt proceedings, besides other remedies that may be available in law to the plaintiff.

¶24

Consequently, present suit for partition is decreed in the aforesaid terms. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet. Accordingly, present

¶25

suit and pending applications stand disposed of. However, list the matter for compliance on 8^th May, 2019.

¶26

As a token of acceptance of today’s order, all the parties are directed to sign the present order sheet.

¶27

MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 19, 2019 rn

Pradeep Kumar Seniaray v. Pushpa Rani & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Seniaray v. Pushpa Rani & Others

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

Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Smt. Shashi Jain

Smt. Anita Gupta Vs Sh. Suresh Dudani & Anr.

Pawan Kumar Vs N.C. Mahajan & Ors.

Kanika Bhatia Vs Vijod Bhatia & Anr.

Dish Tv India Limited Vs Sri Bhardwaj Media Private Limited (Cobrapost)

Sh. Raminder Ahluwalia Vs Sh. Sandeep Walia & Anr.

Chadha Motor Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Barinderjit Singh Sahni & Ors.

Nidhi Dhawan Vs Satya Pal Chawla & Ors.

Dayanand Aggarwal Thr.Lr'S Vs Alka Aggarwal

Narinder Paul Kaushik Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

O P Gupta Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mrs. Rita Biswas Vs State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Anr.

Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs Sushil Jha & Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State & Others