LATA CHAUHAN Vs. L S BISHT
LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-423
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
July 20,2010
LATA CHAUHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
L.S. BISHT
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MAHANT GOVIND RAO V. SITA RAM KESHO AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]DATTATREYA SHANKER MOTE V. ANAND CHINTAMAN DATAR [REFERRED TO]
ALVALA BALAYYA V. ALVALA GURUVAYYA [REFERRED TO]
CHARLES EDWARD VICTOR SENEVIRATNE COREA V. MAHATANTRIGEY ISERIS [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA PATTAR V. LAKSHMI [REFERRED TO]
O.R. ABDUL HAMEED V. O.R. ABDUL RAHEEM [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GAFUR KHAN V. PUTA BIBI [REFERRED TO]
AMMAKANNU AMMAL V. NARAVANASWAMI MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA BAKSH SINGH V. BHOLA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KHAW SIM TEK V. CHUAH HOOI GNOH NEON [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN DEI V. RAMCHAND [REFERRED TO]
TROJAN AND COMPANY VS. RM N N NAGAPPA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
WUNTAKAL YALPI CHENABASAVANA GOWD VS. RAO BAHADUR Y MAHABALESHWARAPPA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD BAQAR VS. NAIM UN NISA BIBI [REFERRED TO]
P LAKSHMI REDDY VS. L LAKSHMI REDDY [REFERRED TO]
S M KARIM VS. BIBI SAKINA [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH VS. PHOOL KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
KARBALAI BEGUM VS. MOHAMMAD SAYEED [REFERRED TO]
SARBATI DEVI VS. USHA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KRISHNA ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KENCHEGOWDA VS. SIDDEGOWDA ALIAS MOTEGOWDA [REFERRED TO]
RAMTI DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL VILAS G DALVI NATHAL GHARAGE RAJARAM K POWAR PANDURANG B SARNOBAT VS. BALWANT ALIAS BALASAHEB BABUSAHEB PATIL AND HEIRS:RAMACHANDRA Y DALVI:RAJARAM A GHARAGE:DINKARRAO K POWAR:K L SARNOBAT [REFERRED TO]
P PERIASAMI PA PERIASAMI MUTHIRIAR VS. P PERIATHAMBI:P PERIASAMI MUTHIRIAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD NOORUL HODA VS. BIBI RAIFUNNISA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA DASS AGARWAL VS. KANHAIYALAL [REFERRED TO]
BINA MURLIDHAR HEMDEV VS. KANHAIYALAL LOKRAM HEMDEV [REFERRED TO]
VISHIN N KHANCHANDANI VS. VIDYA LACHMANDAS KHANCHANDANI [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ALI VS. JAGADISH KAKITA [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF VS. GOVT OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GAYATRI DE VS. MOUSUMI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. BIRBAL [REFERRED TO]
T ANJANAPPA VS. SOMALINGAPPA [REFERRED TO]
BAY BERRY APARTMENTS PVT LTD VS. SHOBHA [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDAMMAL VS. R PERUMAL CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
P T MUNICHIKKANNA REDDY VS. REVAMMA [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR BARNWAL VS. RAM LAKHAN [REFERRED TO]
HEMAJI WAGHAJI JAT VS. BHIKHABHAI KHENGARBHAI HARIJAN [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF COMMISSIONER DELHI VS. KITTY PURI [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KAKKAR VS. RAM PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
PRAN NATH MALLICK VS. NETAR PRAKASH MALLICK [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN KISHAN MALIK VS. AVTAR KISHAN MALIK [REFERRED TO]
KRIPA NATH VS. GANGA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
VANKAMAMIDI BALAKRISHNAMURTHI VS. GOGINENI SAMBAYYA [REFERRED TO]
SOONDERDAS THAKERSEY VS. BAI LAXMIBAI [REFERRED TO]
BABANI SOIROO PATEL VS. DULBA GOVIND BHANDARI [REFERRED TO]
DEONANDAN PRASHAD VS. JANKI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MIR HUSSAIN ALI VS. MIR BAQUIR ALI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS VS. SANTOSH SHUKLA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-462] [REFERRED TO]SARITA DUA VS. DR. GAUTAM DEV SOOD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM SANGHI VS. RAJ KISHAN DAS [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-241] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In this suit, the plaintiff claims partition and other consequential relief. The pedigree
table/Family tree, for a better understanding of the dispute is reproduced below.
Rai Bahadur Dev Singh Bisht
Thakur Dan Singh Bist Thakur Mohan Singh Bist
[SEPARATED ON 29-03-1956]
Smt. Ganga Devi Smt. Lila Wati
Smt. Jagat Raj Kumari
Smt. Parvati Bist
Wife of Defendant No.1
Arjun Ajay Bisht Ashok
Bisht (Deft. 4) Bisht (Deft. 3) Manjula Singh
(Deft. No.2) (Deft. 12)
Mrs. Neelam
Ms. Pushpa Parihar
Katoch (Def.7) Ms Saroj (Deft. No.11)
Ms. Hemlata Jamwal (Def. 5)
Singh (Deft. 6)
Mrs. Asha
Rathore
(Deceased)
Lata Chauhan (Pltf)
Sandeep Supriya (Deft. No. 8)
Rathore
(Deft. No.9)
(2.)In the present suit partition of two properties which were allegedly owned by Thakur Dan Singh Bisht who died intestate on 10.9.64 is claimed. The suit is filed by the youngest daughter of late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht seeking partition of two properties although it is being claimed that he had other properties, but those were previously partitioned. The defendant nos. 2, 3, 4, 12 are contesting this suit. Defendant no.1 died during the suit and his legal representatives are Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 12. Other defendants support the claim of the plaintiff. The defence of the contesting defendants is that one of the two properties in suit, i.e. A-20 West End Avenue, New Delhi was purchased by Defendant No.1 out of his own funds and construction was raised by him from his own resources and, therefore, he was the absolute owner of the suit property.
(3.)The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint was that her father late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht had acquired some immovable properties situated in Delhi, Nainital and Pithoragarh and out of those properties the property in Nainital known as „Grassmere House' was already partitioned in equal shares amongst all his legal heirs after his death and the other two properties i.e. House no. A-20, West End, New Delhi and some land in Pithoragarh (U.P.) continued to remain joint properties. The plaintiff claims that all the parties in the suit were entitled to the properties of late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht in equal shares but since Defendant Nos. 1-4 and 12 were not agreeing to have the aforesaid two joint properties partitioned the present suit for partition etc. had to be filed.
(2.)In the present suit partition of two properties which were allegedly owned by Thakur Dan Singh Bisht who died intestate on 10.9.64 is claimed. The suit is filed by the youngest daughter of late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht seeking partition of two properties although it is being claimed that he had other properties, but those were previously partitioned. The defendant nos. 2, 3, 4, 12 are contesting this suit. Defendant no.1 died during the suit and his legal representatives are Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 12. Other defendants support the claim of the plaintiff. The defence of the contesting defendants is that one of the two properties in suit, i.e. A-20 West End Avenue, New Delhi was purchased by Defendant No.1 out of his own funds and construction was raised by him from his own resources and, therefore, he was the absolute owner of the suit property.
(3.)The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint was that her father late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht had acquired some immovable properties situated in Delhi, Nainital and Pithoragarh and out of those properties the property in Nainital known as „Grassmere House' was already partitioned in equal shares amongst all his legal heirs after his death and the other two properties i.e. House no. A-20, West End, New Delhi and some land in Pithoragarh (U.P.) continued to remain joint properties. The plaintiff claims that all the parties in the suit were entitled to the properties of late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht in equal shares but since Defendant Nos. 1-4 and 12 were not agreeing to have the aforesaid two joint properties partitioned the present suit for partition etc. had to be filed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.