Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 287 (DEL)

A N KHANNA v. M M KHANNA

2008-03-13

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2008
Judgment Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. This is a suit claiming partition and possession of various properties and immovables. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties moved the Court under provisions of Order 23 Rule 3, after having entered into a mutually acceptable compromise. Their statements were recorded on 30th April, 1976 and the Court issued a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the plaintiff and the defendants. Each of them was entitled to 1/4th share in the properties. The order of that date reads as follows: `` This is a suit for partition of the various properties mentioned in the schedules attached to the plaint. The plaintiffs and the defendants are brothers. Shri Mool Chand Khanna, the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants died on 13th of April, 1962 leaving behind his widow Smt. Lal Devi and the plaintiffs and the defendants as his sons. Smt. Lal Devi, the mother of the parties died on 21st of January, 1964 leaving behind the parties as her sons and only heirs. Certain properties were held by late Shri Mool Chand Khanna as karta of the joint Hindu family. Certain properties were held by late Shri Mool Chand Khanna as his separate properties. Certain properties were held by Smt. Lal Devi as her personal properties. The present suit is with respect to all the aforesaid properties. During the pendency of the suit, the parties have entered into a compromise for settlement of their disputes. An application under Order 23 Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed in the Court today. Statements of all the parties to the suit have been recorded in the Court today. From the statements of the parties, I am satisfied that the parties to the suit have entered into a lawful compromise for settlement of the disputes between them. In accordance with the terms contained in EX. P-1, I grant a preliminary decree for partition of the properties in suit including those disclosed in the written statement of the defendants. The share of the parties are determined in the properties in suit as 1/4th each. I also grant a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts and appoint defendant No.2 to settle all the questions of accounts between the parties. The share of the parties are determined in the properties in suit as 1/4th each. I also grant a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts and appoint defendant No.2 to settle all the questions of accounts between the parties. I appoint defendant No.2 as the receiver, local commissioner and referee for collecting the estate and settling all questions of accounts and suggest the mode to divide the movable and immovable properties in four equal shares between the parties in suit. Defendant No.2 has undertaken to perform his functions and duties as are contained in Ex. P1. Defendant No.2 to submit his report by the end of September, 1976. Documents filed by the parties in this suit may be handed over to defendant No.2. Copy of this order along with the copy of the application be handed over the defendant No.2 through the registry for acting in accordance with Ex. P1.` 2. The defendant No.2 who was constituted a Receiver/Local Commissioner and referee empowered to collect the estate and he submitted six interim reports to the Court from time to time. 3. On 21.9.1988, this Court allowed I.A. 6473/1988 and permitted the Receiver to sell Plot No.11, Ring Road,Lajpat Nagar IV,New Delhi to M/s.Durga Housing and General Finance Pvt. Ltd. and similarly Plot No. 12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi to Ms. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. 5A/107, for a total consideration of Rs. 87,50,000/-. The previous order dated 23.2.1988 had imposed the conditions for such sale and also recorded approval for sale of another property at South Extension. The Receiver was also directed to invest the entire amount of consideration in Government approved investment bonds. On 1.9.1989, the Court directed as follows: `` The Receiver has prayed that the jewellery in 4 bags as referred in the 3rd report dated 16th September, 1986, be ordered to be divided by drawing lots in Court. From the said report it appears that the jewellery has been kept in 4 bags. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1 and Ms. Saxena appearing for Mr. Dhanda, learned counsel for LRs of plaintiff No.2, also state that the jewellery be divided by drawing lots as suggested by the Receiver. Defendants have not been appearing in spite of issue of various notices to them. Receiver has also filed an affidavit of service. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1 and Ms. Saxena appearing for Mr. Dhanda, learned counsel for LRs of plaintiff No.2, also state that the jewellery be divided by drawing lots as suggested by the Receiver. Defendants have not been appearing in spite of issue of various notices to them. Receiver has also filed an affidavit of service. The matter with regard to division of share will also be considered on 3rd October, 1989, on which date the lots will be drawn in Court for dividing the jewellery. Let an intimation be sent by the Receiver to the defendants under registered A.D. cover stating that the draw of lots for dividing the jewellery will take place in Court and when the matters with regard to division of shares will also be decided, and if they so want, they can appear. The Receiver will also annexe a copy of this order alongwith his letter. Let a copy of the order be given to learned counsel for Receiver. To come up on 3rd October, 2989.` 4. It is submitted by counsel for the parties that the division of properties of immovable has been actually effected in terms of the report of the Receiver, suggested to the Court. It is, however, submitted that the entire surviving issue which the Court would have to deal with is the division of the shares and the accruals to the same through issue of bonus shares etc. 5. The Receiver had by a third report filed in the Court on 18th September, 1986 described the share holdings of Late Sh. M.C. Khanna and Smt. Lal Devi Khanna whose estate was sought to be divided in the present proceedings. According to the valuation made then the total value was Rs. 4,73,474/-; each of the parties to the suit was held entitled to an equivalent of 1/4th of the value i.e. Rs. 1,18,368.50. However, the Court has not passed any order on that report till date. 6. According to the valuation made then the total value was Rs. 4,73,474/-; each of the parties to the suit was held entitled to an equivalent of 1/4th of the value i.e. Rs. 1,18,368.50. However, the Court has not passed any order on that report till date. 6. In view of the fact that this matter has been pending for drawing a final decree all this while and further that the original parties to the suit are no-longer alive and taking into consideration the fact that the interim reports have been acted upon, the immovable properties and the jewellery items, the amounts invested in Government securities upon the sale of the immovable properties have been duly apportioned in terms of various reports which were accepted by the Court, this Court is now of the opinion that the third interim report of the Receiver should be accepted. 7. In view of the above, let a final decree be drawn in terms of preliminary decree and all the reports furnished by the Receiver to this Court. This shall, of course, include the third interim report filed on 18th September, 1986. The Registry is directed to draw a final decree in the above terms. In so far as the shares are concerned, each original party to the suit is held entitle to 1/4th share in each share of the late Sh. M.C. Khanna and Smt. Lal Devi Khanna and the HUF, mentioned in the third interim report. 8. The final decree shall be drawn in the above terms.