CS(OS) 2165/2008. Case: Jeevan Kumar Mehan Vs Praveen Verma & Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberCS(OS) 2165/2008
CounselFor Appellant: Mr Kartike Anand and For Respondent: Mr A.K. Singh and Mr T. Akhtar, Advs. for Mr Nageshwar Pandey, Mr Anuj Kr. Singh and Mr A.K. Pandey, Advs, Ms Anju Lal and Ms Shalu Lal, Advs.
JudgesV.K. Jain, J.
IssueCivil Procedure Code - Order 2 Rule 2
Judgement DateOctober 28, 2010
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

Judgment:

V.K. Jain, J.

  1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff wants to amend the plaint so as to incorporate Paras 18.1 and 18.3 and also wants to amend paras 19. 20, 22, 23 and 25 of the plaint while deleting para No. 21. The plaintiff also wants to amend the prayer clause so as to claim certain additional reliefs.

  2. The application has been opposed by defendants No. 1 and 2. The application, however, is not opposed by defendants No. 3 to 7.

  3. It has been alleged in the original plaint that the plaintiff is the co-owner of property No. C-85, NDSE-II, New Delhi having 1/4th share in it, which he purchased vide sale deed registered on 18th August 1986. The defendants 1 to 3 are the sisters of the plaintiff, whereas defendants No. 4 to 7 are the wife and children of his deceased brother. It has been further alleged in the plaint that the aforesaid property was purchased by the plaintiff, his father late Sh. Ram Dev Mehan and his brother late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mehan, by pooling their resources. Earlier, this property was owned by Surinderjit Singh HUF and Shri Ravi Singh. Late Ram Dev Mehan, father of the plaintiff, purchased the half undivided share in that property from Surinderjit Singh HUF, whereas the plaintiff purchased 1/4th undivided share in the property from Shri Ravi Singh. Late Rakesh Kumar Mehan also purchased 1/4th undivided share in the suit property from Shri Ravi Singh. Thus the plaintiff, his father and brother had proportionate shares of 1/4th, 1/2 and 1/4th, respectively in that property. It is further alleged that at the time of purchase of suit property, it had a single story construction. Later on, first floor and second floor were also constructed, besides making certain additions and alterations. After the aforesaid constructions, the plaintiff, his father and his brother entered into an amicable arrangement amongst themselves and by virtue of that arrangement they entered into separate and exclusive possession of different portions of the property, while leaving some parts common for the usage of all. Late Ram Dev Mehan took possession of the basement and the ground floor, the plaintiff took possession of the first floor whereas the brother late Rakesh Kumar Mehan took possession of the second floor. It has been further alleged that the co-owners took up exclusive possession and enjoyment of different portions, without severance of interest that would amount a partition of the suit property. It has also been alleged in para 9 of the plaint that the suit property also has a driveway on the ground floor which forms part of the common passages and areas of the suit property and are in common possession and enjoyment of all the co-owners. The portion marked in Black in the site plan Annexure A to the plaint indicates common areas and passages. The portion shown in Red indicates the portion occupied by late Ram Dev Mehan. The portion marked in Green shows the portion occupied by the plaintiff, whereas the portion marked in Blue was in possession of late Rakesh Kumar Mehan. It has also been alleged that under the Will executed by late Ram Dev Mehan dated 3rd June 2001, his share in the undivided suit property devolved equally on defendants No. 1 to 3, who are his daughters. The condition imposed by the testator stipulated that in case any of his daughters wished to sell the share inherited by her, the first preference for such sale was required to be given to his other daughters and in case other daughters were not willing to purchase that share, the second preference was to be given to the plaintiff to purchase that share.

  4. It is also alleged in the original plaint that defendants No. 1 to 3 were intending to sell their portion in the suit property without first offering the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, restraining them from alienating their share in the suit property, marked in red in the site plan and also the common driveway marked in brown and the terrace rights, in contravention of the terms of the Will of late Ram Dev Mehan.

  5. Thus, the stand taken by the plaintiff in the original plaint is that the suit property was jointly owned by him, his late father...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT