Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1149 (DEL)

OM PRAKASH SACHDEVA v. VIMLA KUMARI SACHDEVA

2007-05-28

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2007
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) LATE Shri Amar Nath Sachdeva, who died in 1982, was the owner of immovable property F-92, Rajouri Garden, New Delh. The plaintiff is the son of late Shri amar Nath Sachdeva, defendant No. 1 is the wife, defendants 4 and 5 are the daughters while defendants No. 2 and 3 are the sons of the plaintiff. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the property in suit is an anscestral property while it was owned by late Shri Amar Nath Sachdeva and, thus, the plaintiff has a share in the suit property. Late Shri Amar Nath Sachdeva had executed a registered Will dated 3. 1. 1972 whereby he bequeathed the property to defendant No. 1, his wife. ( 3 ) THE present case is one where defendant No. 1, the wife of the deceased owner, who is 90 years old, has been unfortunately dragged into this litigation possibly because of the disputes between the other LRs. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for defendant no. 1 states on instructions that defendant no. 1 is even willing to give a share to the plaintiff, assuming the property to be ancestral property, but applying the principle of a notional partition, the share of late Shri Amar Nath Sachdeva would devolve on her. This is acceptable to the plaintiff who can hardly dispute this position in view of the fact that it is the own case of the plaintiff that the property is ancestral property and in an earlier plaint filed before the Civil Judge had in fact pleaded that the property was self acquired by his father. ( 5 ) THE result is that the property would be liable to be divided into five shares with plaintiff, defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 getting one share; defendant no. 4 one share; defendant no. 5 one share; defendant no. 1 getting two shares, inclusive of the share of the deceased husband. ( 6 ) THE result of the aforesaid is that the shareholding would be as under: Plaintiff, defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 = 20% defendant no. 1 = 40% defendant no. 4 = 20% defendant no. 5 = 20% ( 7 ) DEFENDANT no. 1 has agreed to the aforesaid to put an end to the aforesaid dispute. ( 6 ) THE result of the aforesaid is that the shareholding would be as under: Plaintiff, defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 = 20% defendant no. 1 = 40% defendant no. 4 = 20% defendant no. 5 = 20% ( 7 ) DEFENDANT no. 1 has agreed to the aforesaid to put an end to the aforesaid dispute. ( 8 ) A preliminary decree for partition is passed in respect of the aforesaid property declaring the shares of the parties as aforesaid, which is agreed to all the parties, who are present in Court to give instructions. ( 9 ) INSOFAR as the passing of the final decree is concerned, learned counsels for the parties state that defendant No. 1 has further shown indulgence and it has been agreed that since defendant No. 1 has already entered into a development agreement with the third party for Rs. 1. 75 crore and the plaintiff claims that the value of the property is higher, defendant No. 1 has agreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 45. 00 lakh in full and final satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 has further agreed to pay to defendants 2 and 3 a sum of Rs. 21. 00 lakh each out of which Rs. 6. 00 lakh each have already been paid. Thus, Rs. 15. 00 lakh each further have to be paid. Defendants 4 and 5 state that they are with their mother, defendant No. 1 and have mutually settled with her and do not want any segregated amount to be paid to the said defendants. ( 10 ) A final decree decree is passed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.