Satish Kumar v. Prem Kumar & Ors

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R.MIDHA, J. October 20, 2008 mm Page No.15 of 15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment reserved on : September 18, 2008 % Judgment delivered on : October 20, 2008 + SATISH KUMAR ....... Appellant Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate versus PREM KUMAR & ORS. ....... Respondents Through: Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The original suit bearing Suit No.1/2003 was filed by the Appellant, Satish Kumar, against the Respondents for the partition of his alleged 1/9th share in the property bearing Page No.1 of 15 Municipal No.9/748, Subash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Property"). 2. I shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the suit. 3. The tenor of the dispute between the parties can be understood properly by the following pedigree:- Pyare Lal I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------ First I I Second Wife I I Wife Lajwanti Raj Kumari I I I Children I Children ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I Satish Om Sudesh Prem Nirmal Asha Pinki Madhu Veena Kumar Prakash Kumar (Plaintiff) (D–8) (D–7) (D–1) (D–2) (D-3) (D-4) (D-5) (D-6) 4. Case set up by the plaintiff was that Late Sh. Pyare Lal (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") was the owner of the properties bearing Municipal Nos.K-45 and K-46, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and two other properties situated at Rudrapur Maniari Bazaar, Uttar Pradesh and Gurgaon respectively. That the properties situated at Lajpat Nagar were alloted by the Rehabilitation Department in the name of the deceased in lieu of the properties left behind by him in Pakistan. That the deceased had purchased the suit property in name of his second wife, Late Smt. Raj Kumari and the sale Page No.2 of 15 consideration thereof was paid by him from out of the sale proceeds of the afore-mentioned properties. That Late Smt. Raj Kumari had no right, title or interest in the suit property as she was a mere benamidar of the deceased inasmuch as the deceased was the real owner of the suit property as he had paid the entire consideration in respect of the suit property. That the deceased had died intestate and therefore being the natural born son of the deceased, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share in the suit property as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 5. Defendant No.1, Prem Kumar and defendant No.6, Smt. Veena contested the suit filed by the plaintiff. Defence set up by them was that Late Late Smt. Raj Kumari had purchased the suit property from one Smt. Dwarka Devi on 26.10.1964 vide registered sale deed dated 27.10.1964 for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. That the suit property was the self-acquired property of Late Smt. Raj Kumari as she had paid the entire sale consideration in respect thereof from her istridhan. That the stand of the plaintiff that the deceased was the real owner of the suit property and that Late Late Smt. Raj Kumari was a benamidar of the deceased stands belied from the fact that the properties at Lajpat Nagar which is alleged to be the main source of sale consideration of the suit property were sold by Page No.3 of 15 the deceased in the years 1976 and 1981 respectively which was much after the acquisition of the suit property by Late Smt. Raj Kumari in the year 1964. That the sale proceeds of the properties at Lajpat Nagar were spent by the deceased on the marriage of his daughters. That since the plaintiff is not the legal heir of Late Smt. Raj Kumari, he is not entitled to any share in the suit property which was the exclusive property of Late Late Smt. Raj Kumari. That Late Smt. Raj Kumari executed a Will dated 31.03.1986 wherein she had bequeathed the suit property in the favour of defendan