MANMOHAN RAJ BINDRA v. BALRAJ BINDRA — 1997 DIGILAW 713 (DEL)

Z. M. Nayar ( 1 ) THE present suit is filed for partition of the property as referred to in Annexure a of the plaint. The relevant facts as detailed in the plaint relating to the history of the family, pending table and details of the property are referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the plaint which may be reproduced as follows: "that the parties to the present suit were originally residents of Sialkot, now in Pakistan, and they migrated to India in 1947 on the partition of the country, and are members of the Joint Hindu Family. " ( 2 ) THAT the following is the pedigree table, which shows the relationship of the parties: Mulkraj Bindra Prithvi Raj Pal Raj Bindra Krishan s^ Bindra Defendant) Mohan Bindra (Defendant) (Deceased) (Deceased) Raj Mohini Bindra (Wife Plaintiff) Manmohan Asha Indu Suneela Raj Bindra (married) (Unmarried) (Plaintiff) ( 3 ) THAT in West Pakistan the Joint Hindu Family of which Shri Mulk Raj Bindra was the Karta, onwed properties, which belonged to the Joint Hindu Family. After migrating to India, claims for the property left in West Pakistan, were filed by the Karta of the family and the same were duly verified and sanctioned. The Joint Hindu Family also owned some agricultural lands in Pakistan and, in lieu thereof, land was allotted to the Joint Hindu Family District Jullundur, Punjab. Shri Mulk Raj Bindra died on 1. 12. 1954, and then his eldest son Shri Prithvi Raj Bindra became karta of the H. U. F. ( 4 ) THAT the Joint Hindu Family purchased at Government auction property, known as 5, Original Road, Karol bagh, New Delhi, and consideration for the same was paid in the form of verified claims of properties left by the HUF in Pakistan. The plaintiff is not aware of other particulars, since the relevant documents are in possession of the defendant No. 1. It may be mentioned that property. No. 1 Original Road, was evacuee property and after it was declared evacuee property, it vested in the President of India. ( 5 ) THAT out of the funds of the Joint Hindu Family purchased property No. 173 Model Town, Julllundur City. This property was purchased by late Shri Mulk Raj Bindra. It may be mentioned that property. No. 1 Original Road, was evacuee property and after it was declared evacuee property, it vested in the President of India. ( 5 ) THAT out of the funds of the Joint Hindu Family purchased property No. 173 Model Town, Julllundur City. This property was purchased by late Shri Mulk Raj Bindra. The plaintiff is not in a position to give better particulars because all the relevant documents are in the possession of the defendant No. 1. ( 6 ) THAT agricultural land Basti Shah Ouli (suburb of Jullundur) was allotted to HUF In lieu of agricultural land left by the HUF in Pakistan at the time of partition. The details of all the above-mentioned three properties are given in Annexure a attached to the plaint. The plaintiff is handicapped in giving better particulars, since all the relevant documents are in the possession of the defendant No. 1. " 2. There is no dispute about the respective shares of the parties in the properties which may be indicated hereunder: (A) 1/3rd share will go to the legal heirs of Shri Prithvi Raj Bindra, since deceased, i. e. plaintiffs 1 and 2 defendants 3,4 and 5. (B) 1/3rd share will accrue to the legal heirs of shri Balraj Bindra, defendant No. 1 who has since expired on 11th May, 1991. The application I. A. No. 9878/91 to bring on record his legal representatives has since been allowed on 16th January, 1992. (C) 1/3rd share will devolve on defendant No. 2 Shri Krishan Mohan Bindra. 3. The issues in the suit were framed on October 26, 1993 when the following order was passed: "s. NO. 527/79 and I. A. 6904/91 On 16th February, 1990 the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the immovable properties which are subject matter of the suit are no longer Joint Hindu Family properties by virtue of the alleged oral partition in 1977 as set up by defendants No. 3 to 5? If so, on what terms and to what effect? 2. Relief. . Mr. Chadha, learned counsel for defendants 3 to 5, however, submits that the, aforesaid defendants do not press their objection that immovable properties which are subject matter of the suit are not Joint Hindu Family properties by virtue of the alleged oral partition in 1977 as set up by defendants No. 3 to 5. 2. Relief. . Mr. Chadha, learned counsel for defendants 3 to 5, however, submits that the, aforesaid defendants do not press their objection that immovable properties which are subject matter of the suit are not Joint Hindu Family properties by virtue of the alleged oral partition in 1977 as set up by defendants No. 3 to 5. Accordingly, the said issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff. List the suit for hearing on 7th February, 1994. "the later part of the above order will clearly indicate that the parties do not dispute the fact that the immovable properties as referred to in the plaint which are subject matter in the suit are Joint Hindu Family properties. Annexure A to the plaint gives the following description of the properties: 1. Bungalow No. 5 Original Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, As per registration records House No. XVI/8569, Plot No. 5, Block No. 54, in Western Extension Area, Khasra No. 746/506-17. Area 1323. 86 sq. yds bounded as: North : plot No. 6 South : plotno. 4 East : Lane West : Original Road 2. House No. 173, Model Town, Jullundur, city. Area : 2 Kanals 9. 1 Marias approx. , bounded as cast : House on plot No. 174 West : Road North : House No. 172 South : Road 3. Agricultural Land: 4. . Situated in Basti Shah Quii, Tehl. and Distt. Jullundur: area, approx 4 Kanals. The details of the agricultural land as shown at serial No. 3 and copy of the revenue record and details relating to the same filed with the documents have already been supplied which from part of the record of the case. 5. In view of the facts as stated above and taking into consideration that there is no contest between the parties I pass a preliminary decree in the present suit declaring that out of the properties mentioned in Annexure a to the plaint 1/3rd share will go to the legal heirs of Shri Prithvi Raj Bindra, since deceased, i. e. plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 3, 4 and 5; 1/3rd share to the legal heirs of Shri Balraj Bindra, defendant No. 1 i. e. defendants 1 (a) to 1 (e) and 1/3rd share will devolve on defendant No. 2 Shri Krishan Mohan Bindra. I appoint Mr. I appoint Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Advocate as Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition of the properties in terms of the Order. The fee of the local commissioner is fixed at Rs. 10,000. 00 to be paid by the parties in equal shares. The report shall be filed within a period -of four months from today. List the matter for further orders on 4th February, 1998.