Disposed

Shri Harkesh Kumar & Others v. Shri Mahavir & Others

Delhi HC8 May 2019CS(OS)/468/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court noted the suit seeks partition of land. Parties reached a consensus on share calculations and deductions for sold land. Desirous of resolving complexities regarding site plans and vacant possession, the judge directed all parties to appear in person on a specific date to conclusively determine the outcome.

What did the court decide?

All parties ordered to appear in person before the court on 19th March, 2019.

Shri Harkesh Kumar & Others Vs Shri Mahavir & Others — Partition | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 468/2016 & IAs No.11524/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC), 11526/2016 (u/S 151 CPC), 13860/2018 (of D-3 u/O I R-10(2) CPC) & 17667/2018 (of D-1&2 u/O VII R-11 CPC)

¶4

HARKESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Deepanshu Gupta, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

MAHAVIR & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Adv. for D-1&2. Mohd. Hakim Khan, Adv. for D-4. Mr. Deepanshu Gupta, Adv. for D-3.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

¶9

% 08.03.2019

¶10

Though several applications are pending consideration but on hearing the counsel for the three plaintiffs and who states that he is also the counsel for the defendant No.3 Yash Pal, the counsel for the defendants No.1&2 and the counsel for the defendant No.4, it is learnt (i) that the suit is for partition of the land admeasuring 1400 sq. yds. in the extended Lal Dora of Village Bharthal, Tehsil Kapashera, New Delhi; (ii) that it is not in dispute that the three plaintiffs together have 1/3^rd share in the said land, the defendants No.1&2 together have another 1/3^rd share in the said land and the defendant No.3 has the remaining 1/3^rd share in the said land; (iii) that on the aforesaid basis, each of the 1/3^rd share would translate 466 sq. yds. of land; (iv) that it is also not in dispute that the defendants No.1&2 have sold 67.50 sq. yds. of land to the defendant No.4; and, (v) the counsel for the defendants No.1&2 CS(OS) 468/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶11

is agreeable that the portion of 67.50 sq. yds. sold by the defendants No.1&2 to the defendant No.4 be deducted out of the defendants No.1&2‟s 466 sq. yds. share.

¶12

A perusal of the site plan at page 2 of Part III-A file shows the land to be partly built up. One portion of the land, in the site plan is shown as “Kaniyalal Property”. Neither counsel knows who is Kaniyalal nor, which portion is in occupation of which of the parties.

¶13

All the parties to appear in person before this Court on 19^th March, 2019.

¶14

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶15

MARCH 08, 2019 „bs‟..

¶16

Page 2 of 2

¶17

CS(OS) 468/2016

Shri Harkesh Kumar & Others v. Shri Mahavir & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Harkesh Kumar & Others v. Shri Mahavir & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Malhotra Vs Smt. Simmi Dhawan

Simmi Dhawan Vs Navin Malhotra & Ors.

Shabnam Sikand Vs Geeta Sikand & Anr.

Col. Gurnam Singh Gujral Vs Cmdr. Harjit Singh Gujral and Ors.

M/S Hydel Constructions Private Limited Vs Shri Tejinder Singh Laschar

Shri Ashish Kapoor Vs Shri Paramjeet Kapoor and Others

Alok Kumar Brara Vs Sarah Jane & Ors.

Chander Kant Beri & Anr. Vs Ravi Kant Beri & Anr.

Shri Jai Dev & Anr. Vs Smt. Jai Bala Mittal & Ors.

Shabnam Sikand Vs Geeta Sikand & Anr.

Mcdonalds India Private Limited Vs Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited & Anr.

Mrs Sushila Badola Vs Sh Tushar Patni & Anr.

M/S Btw India Private Limited Vs Rajesh Yadav & Anr.

M/S Hydel Constructions Private Limited Vs Shri Tejinder Singh Laschar