Partly allowed

Rooma Bhutani v. Sanjeev Sapra & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Jan 2024CS(OS)/3280/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed applications by third parties to be impleaded as defendants in a partition suit due to lack of documentary proof establishing their title as necessary parties. The Court subsequently passed a Final Decree directing the sale of the property by auction as it could not be partitioned by metes and bounds.

What did the court decide?

Applications for impleadment dismissed. Final Decree passed directing sale of property by auction and distribution of proceeds.

Rooma Bhutani Vs Sanjeev Sapra & Ors. — Partition | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 10^th January, 2024

¶4

- CS(OS) 3280/2011, I.A. 3000/2019, I.A. 3002/2019, 7394/2019, 7395/2019, I.A.17320/2019, I.A. 17322/2019, I.A. 17323/2019, I.A. 17324/2019

¶5

ROOMA BHUTANI ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Imran Ali and Mr. Maneesh Saxena, Advocates.

¶6

versus SANJEEV SAPRA & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Advocate for D3 & LRs of D2. Mr. Ashish Negi, Advocate for applicant in I.A. 17319/2019.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶9

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶10

I.A. 7393/2019 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for joining the applicant Ramesh Chand Sapra as defendant as the applicant and his sisters are also the necessary parties of this present case) I.A. 17319/2019 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for joining the applicant Meenu Gandhi as defendant as the applicant and her other relatives are also the necessary parties of this present case) I.A.17321/2019 under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for joining the applicant Pushpa Juneja as defendant as the applicant and her other relatives are also the necessary parties of the present case)

¶11

The above three applications have been filed on behalf of the applicants for being impleaded as defendants being a necessary party in the present suit.

¶12

Shri Abnashi Dass Sapra from his first marriage has two children

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

CS(OS) 3280/2011 Page 1 of 6

¶15

DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:12:20

¶16

Ramesh Chand Sapra and Pushpa Sapra @ Pushpa Aneja and from his second marriage he has one daughter Meenu Sapra @ Meenu Gandhi and one son Ashok Kumar Sapra. Ashok Kumar Sapra has died while Shri Abnashi Dass Sapra is survived by three applicants, Ramesh Chand Sapra, Pushpa Sapra and Meenu Sapra.

¶17

The applicants have submitted that after the partition of India in 1947 Shri Abnashi Dass Sapra alias Abinashi Ram alias Abnashi Ram alias Abinashi Dass Sapra, father of the applicants along with the family members and relatives came to India. Shri Sadhu Ram, brother of Shri Abnashi Dass Sapra along with family members also came to India. The Ministry of Rehabilitation started a scheme for Rehabilitation of the Refugees who came to India from Pakistan and allotted plots/land/quarters for the Rehabilitation. The possession of plot/property/quarter No.II-L-100, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi was given to Shri Abnashi Dass Sapra eing a Refugee, by Ministry of Rehabilitation.

¶18

The applicants submitted that as per the knowledge received from Shri Ramesh Chand Sapra, Quarter No.II-L-100, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi was allotted to Shri Abnashi Dass Sapra their father, though the documents of allotment are available in the office of L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. After getting the plot allotted, Shri Abnashi Dass Sapra used to deposit the rent regularly in respect of this property against proper receipts which were issued by the concerned Department.

¶19

The adjoining property, i.e. Quarter No.II-L-99, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi was allotted to Shri Sadhu Ram brother of Shri Abnashi Dass Sapra and uncle of the applicants and he also used to pay rent regularly in respect of the quarter allotted to him..

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

CS(OS) 3280/2011 Page 2 of 6

¶22

DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:12:20

¶23

The applicants in their respective applications, have submitted that Abnashi Dass Sapra, their father died on 16.09.1955. Thereafter, Smt. Shanti Devi, the second wife of Abnashi Dass Sapra along with her kids went to live in her parental home at House No.6450, Block-8, Dev Nagar, New Delhi. The Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India tried to contact Smt. Shanti Devi, who was also a legal heir, regarding her property rights in Quarter No.II-L-100, Lajpat Nagar.

¶24

It is asserted that the Allotment documents of the property in the name of deceased father were in the possession of brother of Smt. Shanti Devi which have been handed over to them by Meenu Sapra only two months back. After getting the information about their ownership, Ramesh Chand Sapra was contacted and the information was shared with him. The applicants also came to know about the present suit for partition in respect of property No.L-100 and also L-99.

¶25

It is claimed that Rooma Bhutani, the plaintiff and defendants Sanjiv Sapra to the suit, knew very well that Quarter No.II-L-100 was allotted in the name of Abnashi Dass Sapra, father of the applicants and the plot was developed from the income and funds of Abnashi Dass Sapra. The suit for partition has been filed by the plaintiff without giving any information to the applicants and no Notice of the partition suit was ever served upon them.

¶26

The applicants have claimed that the plaintiffs have failed to place on record the copies of the Sale Deed, Lease Deed issued by Government of India in favour of Shri Sadhu Ram in respect of the two suit property namely L-99 and L-100. It is asserted that without the requisite documents on record, the ownership of the parties to the suit property cannot be ascertained. A prayer is, therefore, made that the applicants in the three

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

CS(OS) 3280/2011 Page 3 of 6

¶29

DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:12:20

¶30

applications may be impleaded as a party.

¶31

No formal reply has been filed by the parties to the applications. 11. Submissions heard.

¶32

The case of the applicants is that on partition, as part of rehabilitation of their father Abnashi Dass Sapra in India, the Ministry of Rehabilitation had given the property L-100 to Abnashi Dass Sapra. However, there is not a single document annexed by the applicants along with their application to support their claim of Abnashi Dass Sapra being the allottee property No.L100.

¶33

The applicant Meenu Sapra @ Meenu Gandhi has annexed with her application her Aadhar Card showing her address of Shikohpur, Gurgaon. The Higher Secondary School Certificate issued by CBSE and copy of the Letter dated 17.08.1955 written by Ministry of Rehabilitation to Smt. Shanti Devi requesting her to appear in the office along with all her papers in her possession relating to her claim and compensation application and the Courier Receipt dated 02.12.2019.

¶34

The applicant Pushpa Devi has annexed her Aadhar Card at the address of A-42, Lajpat Nagar-I and her PAN Card. 15. The applicant Ramesh Chand Sapra has relied upon the Courier Receipt dated 02.12.2019, letter dated 05.03.1952 in respect of rehabilitation benefit enjoyed by the claimant Sadhu Ram and Abnashi Dass Sapra, wherein it is asserted that the two brothers had jointly filed their claim in respect of five properties in Sillanwali and had been allotted Refugee Quarters at Lajpat Nagar. Property No.1 is a shop in Bazar and each shop was valued at Rs.9600 and total of eight shops was valued at Rs.76,800/-. The total claim of the claimants was assessed at Rs.1,65,000/- by the

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

CS(OS) 3280/2011 Page 4 of 6

¶37

DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:12:20

¶38

Claims Officer vide Letter bearing Index No.P/SH-13 of 1989. It was also indicated in this letter that rehabilitation benefit have been enjoyed by the claimant and they have been allotted Government Refugee Quarters.

¶39

None of the documents that have been filed by each of the applicants show that property No.I-L-100 was ever allotted to Abnashi Dass Sapra, father of the applicants. The letter dated 05.03.1952 only indicates that they had filed their claims and the Quarters had been allotted. However, it is nowhere indicated what were the quarters allotted each of them or were jointly allotted along with Sadhu Ram father of parties to the present suit in respect of the suit property. The applicants have not been able to show even a single document to establish that their father was joint allottee right, title or interest in the suit properties. Therefore, they are neither a necessary nor proper party to the present suit for partition.

¶40

The above three applications are, therefore, dismissed. CS(OS) 3280/2011

¶41

A Preliminary Decree has already been made vide Order dated 23.08.2018. The Local Commissioner has already submitted his Report dated 24.11.2018, wherein he has submitted that the property is not amenable to partition by metes and bounds.

¶42

In the circumstances, it is hereby directed that the suit property be sold by way of auction and the sale proceeds to be distributed amongst the parties as per their respective shares already determined in the Preliminary Decree dated 23.08.2018. It is hereby clarified that before holding a Court Auction, the parties are at liberty to buy out the share of the other parties. If there is no consensus arrived at within three months, the property be sold through auction and the proceeds divided amongst the parties.

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

CS(OS) 3280/2011 Page 5 of 6

¶45

DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:12:20

¶46

The Final Decree of Partition is accordingly passed. 21. Decree Sheet be prepared.

¶47

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE

¶48

JANUARY 10, 2024

¶49

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

CS(OS) 3280/2011 Page 6 of 6

¶52

DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date: 18.0 1.2024 19:12:20

Rooma Bhutani v. Sanjeev Sapra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rooma Bhutani v. Sanjeev Sapra & Ors.

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

Suresh Shah & Ors. Vs Sarita Gupta & Ors.

Smt. Usha Joshi Vs Sh. Ashok Kumar Ahluwalia & Anr.

Naresh Malik Vs Indira Budhwar&Anr & Anr.

Jacqueline Rindone Vs Roshan Duvail Jain and Ors.

Devender Jain Vs Ravinder Kumar Jain

Usha Kohli Vs Roshan Lal Vig & Others

Sh. Vijay Kumar Bansal Vs Sh. Bhimsen Bansal & Ors.

Priyanka & Anr. Vs Deepak & Ors.

Muskan Cge Coop.Gruop Housing Society Ltd. Vs M/S. Civilcon Engineers

Suresh Shah & Ors. Vs Sarita Gupta & Ors.

Seema Chibber & Another Vs State of (Gnct of) Delhi & Others

Jaibir Singh Prop. of M/S Malik Constructions Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

M/S. National Highways Authority of India Vs M/S. Patel-Knr Jv

Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Ltd. Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.