Allowed

Shri Surender Kumar Bhutani v. Sh. Sudhendu Ranjan Bhutani

Delhi HC25 Jan 2024CS(OS)/178/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed contentions regarding disputed facts as none existed, holding the parties as joint owners entitled to 50% shares each. The court ordered the sale of the property as it could not be divided by metes and bounds, allowing an option to purchase before sale.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of; Preliminary and Final Decree of Partition passed for sale of property with option to purchase.

Shri Surender Kumar Bhutani Vs Sh. Sudhendu Ranjan Bhutani — Partition | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 178/2018, I.A. 5417/2018

¶4

SHRI SURENDER KUMAR BHUTANI

¶5

..... Plaintiff

¶6

Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate. versus

¶7

SH. SUDHENDU RANJAN BHUTANI

¶8

..... Defendant

¶9

Through: Mr. Peeyush Kalra, Mr. Rohan J. Kapoor, Mr. Yashwant S. Baghel and Mr. Rishabh Thakur, Advocates.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 25.01.2024

¶13

A suit for Declaration, Partition and Permanent Injunction has been filed, wherein it is submitted that the plaintiff and defendants are joint owners of the property bearing No.96, Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi. The property had been purchased in the year 1987 jointly and was constructed by both the parties and they shifted to the suit property in the year 1989. The Conveyance Deed was executed on 15.02.2002 by the erstwhile owner Captain Rajeev Verma s/o Brig. Amrit Lal Verma in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant. The parties are the joint owners and also in joint possession of the suit property. It is submitted that both the parties are entitled to 50% share in the suit property. Hence, a prayer is made that a Preliminary and Final Decree of Partition be made in the aforesaid terms in respect of the suit property.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/06/2024 at 11:51:06

¶15

The defendant in his Written Statement has also admitted that he and the plaintiff are the joint owners and both are entitled to half share in the suit property.

¶16

In view of the admissions of the parties and there being no disputed facts, it is hereby held that plaintiff and defendant are entitle to 50% share in the suit property bearing No. 96, Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi. A Preliminary Decree is accordingly passed.

¶17

Both the Counsel submits that there the property cannot be divided by metes and bounds and is necessarily required to be sold though each party may be given an option of buying the share of the other party before it is sold in the market.

¶18

In view of the submissions made it is held that the property be sold and the sale proceeds be distributed in accordance with their respective shares with a rider that either party shall have the first option of purchasing the share of the other party. Final Decree of accordingly drawn.

¶19

The suit along with pending application is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶21

JANUARY 25, 2024/va

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/06/2024 at 11:51:06

Shri Surender Kumar Bhutani v. Sh. Sudhendu Ranjan Bhutani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Surender Kumar Bhutani v. Sh. Sudhendu Ranjan Bhutani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Sharda Vs Srishti Jain

Rajesh Bansal Vs Ajay Garg & Ors.

Aamazone Exports LLP Vs Sh Sanjay Rana & Anr.

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Issar Vs Sh. Ravi Kumar & Ors.

Gosain Gokul Chand Dharamshala Trust through Its Managing Trustee Vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) through Chief Secretariat

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Vs Sh. Harikesh Kumar

Jyotsna Bedi Vs Tikka Brijinder Singh Bedi & Ors.

Hitesh Gola Vs Royal Bank of Scotland, India (Rbs) & Ors.

M/S Frisco Foods Private Limited Vs Sunbeam Machines India Pvt. Ltd.

Shiv Singh Amar Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Thernal Power Corporation Ltd.

NTPC Ltd. Vs Shiv Singh Amar Singh and Co.

M/S K K Gupta Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Jagdish Kumar Vs Vinod Kumar and Ors.

Dr. Prithviraj Swamy Vs M/S Fiitjee Ltd.