VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2019 › High Court of Delhi

Neelam & Ors v. Pradeep Birman & Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
10 October 2019
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
CS(OS) 479/2016

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. OCTOBER 10, 2019 Rhc.. (corrected & released on 24th October, 2019)

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 10th October, 2019. + CS(OS) 479/2016 & IA No.14077/2019 (u/O XIV R-5 CPC) NEELAM & ORS .... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Dabas and Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Advocates Versus PRADEEP BIRMAN & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Ashok Drall and Mr. Chirag Madan, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Ajay Shanker, Advocate for R-2 Mr. Vipin Jai and Mohammad Nausheen Samar, Advocates for R-3 Mr. Dhirandar Mathur, Advocate for R-4 & R-9 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff No.1 Smt. Neelam, for herself and as mother and natural guardian of her son Master Anshul impleaded as plaintiff No.2, instituted this suit against her husband Pradeep Birman and the Managers of Punjab National Bank, Village Paprawat, Delhi and Punjab National Bank, Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi, for the reliefs of (i) declaration that 2/3rd share equal to Rs.2,17,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.3,26,00,000/- lying in the account in the joint name of plaintiff No.1, Neelam and her husband defendant No.1 Pradeep Birman with the Punjab National Bank, Village Paprawat and Najafgarh Road, Delhi belongs to the two plaintiffs; and, (ii) for mandatory injunction directing the said banks to, from the said accounts, pay the said sum of Rs.2,17,00,000/- to the plaintiffs. 2. The suit came up first before this Court on 22nd May, 2014 as IPA No. 19/2014 and which IPA was allowed and the suit registered on 16th September, 2016. 3. The counsels state that there was an interim arrangement directing the banks to keep the remaining balance amount i.e. Rs.1,35,00,000/- in the subject accounts in the form of FDR and the said amount is still lying with the banks in the fixed deposit account. 4. Pleadings were completed and vide order dated 24th July, 2017, the following issues were framed in the suit: "i) Whether the suit is barred by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act? (OPD-I) ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration and a decree in his favour and against the defendant No.1 declaring him 2/3rd shareholder from a total amount of Rs.3,26,00,000/- of the grand-father of defendant No.1 pursuant to sale of land in the year 2010? (OPP) iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory and/or permanent injunction in respect to the claim in issue No.(ii)? (OPP) iv) Relief." and the parties relegated for recording of evidence. 5. I.A. No. 731/2018 was filed by Bhagwani Devi, Krishan Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Kamlesh, Mukesh Devi and Ritu, being the grandmother, sister, uncles and aunt of defendant No. 1 Pradeep Birman for impleadment in the suit and which was allowed by the Joint Registrar vide order dated 2nd April, 2018. 6. The plaintiff preferred O.A. No. 65/2018 against the said order of the Joint Registrar and which came up before this Court on 14th November, 2018, when the following order was passed:- 1. This Chamber Appeal, being O.A.No.65/2018 along with IA No.8338/2018 for condonation of delay of ten days in filing thereof, preferred by the plaintiffs against the order dated 2nd April, 2018, is for consideration. 2. The counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants has been heard. 3. Vide order dated 2nd April, 2018, the application of Smt. Bhagwani Devi, Shri Krishan Kumar, Shri Ashok Kumar, Ms. Kamlesh and Ms. Mukesh, for impleadment in this suit, was allowed. 4. The counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants has argued, (i) that the appellant/plaintiff no.1, who is the mother of her minor son appellant/plaintiff no.2, has filed this suit against her husband defendant no.1 (who is the father of the appellant/plaintiff no.2), for declaration that 2/3rd share equal to Rs.2,17,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.3,26,00,000/- transferred to the joint account of the appellant/plaintiff no.1 and the defendant no.1, by the grandfather of the defendant no.1, belongs to the plaintiffs/appellants and the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled thereto and seeking a direction to

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.