JASBIR SINGH BAJAJ Vs. GURDEEP SINGH BAJAJ
LAWS(DLH)-2001-9-12
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 14,2001

JASBIR SINGH BAJAJ Appellant
VERSUS
GURDEEP SINGH BAJAJ Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

TEK BAHADUR BHUJIL VS. DEBT SINGH BHUJIL [REFERRED 2.]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. SAMSHER SINGH [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

VIJAY KUMAR JAIN VS. SANJAY KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2002-9-111] [REFERRED]
SURAJ MAL VS. BUDH RAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-895] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

V.S.AGGARWAL - (1.)Plaintiff Jasbir Singh Bajaj has filed the present suit seeking a declaration that he is the sole owner of lease hold rights of Plot No. 16, Block No. 48, Malcha Marg Commercial cun-Residential Premises, New Delhi.
(2.)The facts alleged are that plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 4 are brothers. They are sons of late Inder Singh Bajaj who died on 24/7/1987. The wife of Shri Inder Singh Bajaj had already died on 4/10/1985. Inder Singh Bajaj and Narinder Kaur had executed Wills dated 16/12/1985 and 3/5/1983 according to which they bequeathed their share in immovable property to plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 besides certain amounts given to the daughters. There were various conflicting claims and counter claims with respect to the moveable and immovable properties. For the sake of peace and preservation of honour and dignity of the family and through the good offices of Harbajan Singh Narula the plaintiff and defendants in order to resolve all family disputes voluntarily settled their controversy and an oral settlement was arrived at on 15/10/86. The parties divided the properties by notes and bounds, as a result of which the plaintiff became the absolute owner of plot no. 16, Block 48, Malcha Marg Commercial-cum-Residential Premises. Details have been given about other properties uhich fell to the share of the defendants. Subsequently the same was reduced into writing, on 31/12/1986. The oral family settlement in this process was incorporated therein. Plaintiff claims that clouds are being cast on his right to the property at Malcha Marg hence the present suit for declaration.
(3.)On 21/7/1992 defendant no.1 was appointed as the guardian ad litem of defendant no.8 who was a minor, defendant no.2 was appointed as guardian ad litem of defendant no.10 and defendant, no.11 was appointed as guardian ad litem of defendants 12 and 13 while defendant no.3 was appointed as such of defendants 15 to 18.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.