Skip to content


Vinay Kapoor vs.shri Vivek Kapoor & Ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
AppellantVinay Kapoor
RespondentShri Vivek Kapoor & Ors
Excerpt:
.....position. he has suggested that defendant no.2 may construct a floor. it is requested that a local commissioner may be appointed who may suggest the mode of partition of the property.3. ms. manpreet kaur, advocate, (mobile no.9999255585 is appointed as the local commissioner. the fee of the local commissioner is fixed at rs.1.00 lakh to be shared equally between the parties. the local commissioner will seek the opinion from a structural engineer as to whether an additional floor can be constructed. the local commissioner will also seek an opinion as to whether an additional floor is permitted by the mcd or not. keeping all the interests of the parties in mind and after hearing all the parties, the local commissioner will file his report suggesting the mode of partition. copy of the.....
Judgment:

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 424/2015 VINAY KAPOOR ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate versus SHRI VIVEK KAPOOR & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate for defendants no.1 & 3. Mr. Ateev Mathur and Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates for defendant no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER

1710.2016 % 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition with respect to a plot measuring 200 sq. yds bearing no.29, situated in the area of Village Chandrawali, now known as property no.IV/1680, Mahavir Block, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, which was purchased by Late Shri Gokul Nath Kapoor during his life time. Late Shri Gokul Nath Kapoor died intestate on 08.03.1998, leaving behind only the legal heirs, who are parties to the present suit and his widow, as his only Class-I heirs. As per the plaint, after the death of the father, the parties were in financial crises, as such in order to borrow some loan from the Bank, the mother of the parties had relinquished her right and interest in favour of her four sons vide Relinquishment Deed dated 12.07.2001 which was duly registered. CS(OS).424/2015 Page 1 of 2 2. As jointly prayed, a preliminary decree is passed defining the shares of the parties as 25% each. Counsel for the defendants no.1 and 3 submits that the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 3 are in settled position. He has suggested that defendant no.2 may construct a floor. It is requested that a Local Commissioner may be appointed who may suggest the mode of partition of the property.

3. Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, (Mobile No.9999255585 is appointed as the Local Commissioner. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs.1.00 lakh to be shared equally between the parties. The Local Commissioner will seek the opinion from a structural Engineer as to whether an additional floor can be constructed. The Local Commissioner will also seek an opinion as to whether an additional floor is permitted by the MCD or not. Keeping all the interests of the parties in mind and after hearing all the parties, the Local Commissioner will file his report suggesting the mode of partition. Copy of the order be sent to the Local Commissioner.

4. List on 09.12.2016 to await the report of the Local Commissioner. G.S.SISTANI, J OCTOBER17 2016 pst CS(OS).424/2015 Page 2 of 2


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //