$~12. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CS(OS) 2555/2013 Judgment dated 20th October, 2016 S BIRENDER SINGH BAJAJ & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Ms.Deepika V. Marwaha and Mr.Vaibhav Asthana, Advs. versus S AVTAR SINGH BAJAJ & ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.A. Tiwari, Adv. for defendants Adv. for for Sharma, Adv. no.1-3. Ms.Megha Katari, Adv. for defendants no.4, 9, 10 and Legal Heirs of defendant no.14. Mr.Lalit Bhardwaj, defendants no.5 and 6. Mr.Pramod defendant no.7. Mr.Himanshu defendant no.8. Ms.Namita Wali, Adv. for defendants no.11 to 13. Mr.A.K. Vali, Mr.Tuhin Vali, Mr.Bhaskar Vali and Mr.Farid Khan, Advs. for the intervenor, Mr.Inderjeet Singh in OA No.82/2016. Saini, Adv. for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for partition and permanent injunction with respect to the property bearing no.S-195, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’).
2. The plaintiffs claim that the aforestated property belonged to late CS(OS).2555/2013 Page 1 of 4 Sh.Gyan Singh Bajaj, who died on 29.6.1989. His wife late Smt.Soni Bajaj, predeceased him. Late Sh.Gyan Singh Bajaj was survived by seven children, who have been arrayed as parties in the present suit. It is informed to the Court that one son and one daughter of late Sh. Gyan Singh Bajaj have died prior to the filing of the present suit and one son and one daughter of late Sh.Gyan Singh Bajaj have died after the filing of the present suit.
3. It may be noticed that no written statement has been filed by defendants no.1 and 2 and their right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 7.7.2015. Barring defendants no.1 to 3 all the defendants support the claim of the plaintiff. Resultantly, as agreed, a preliminary decree is passed, defining the shares of the parties as under: S.No.NAME OF THE PARTIES1 Following legal heirs of Late Sh.S. Birender Singh, plaintiff no.1: SHARE17th (A) Mr.Irvinder Singh Bajaj (B) Mrs.Vinny Uppal Dr.Mahabir Singh Bajaj, plaintiff no.2. Sh.S. Avtar Singh Bajaj, defendant no.1. Ms.Tavinder Bajaj. Mr.S.Mohinder Pal Singh Bajaj. Ms.Mohini Bajaj, Ms.Jasmine Bajaj. Mr.Gagan Bajaj. Ms.Manmeet Chhatwal. Mr.Jasneet Bajaj. Defendants no.2 to 8 respectively. Ms.Babli Aurora Defendant no.9.
5. 1/7th 1/7th 1/7th 1/7th CS(OS).2555/2013 Page 2 of 4 6.
7. Ms.Rita Bawa. Ms.Nitu Bakshi. Ms.Ruby Bawa. Ms.Annu Wadhwa. Defendants no.10 to 13 respectively. Following Legal heirs of late Mrs.Jagdish Kaur, defendant no.14:
14. . Mr.Paramjit Singh. 14B. Ms.Preeti Abbi 1/7th 1/7th 4. It is jointly submitted by the counsel for the parties that it is not possible to divide the property, which is 232 sq. yards into seven shares and, thus, no useful purpose will be achieved in appointing a Loc al Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition.
5. Learned counsel for the parties further submit that in fact a final decree may be passed granting leave to the parties to mutually sell the suit property within a period of six months and in case the property cannot be sold within six months either of the parties may approach the Court for sale of the property.
6. As prayed and agreed, the parties would endeavour to sell the suit property by mutual consent within six months from today, failing which any of the parties may approach the Court for filing an execution petition.
7. Accordingly, suit stands decreed in terms of share defined hereinabove. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. CS(OS).2555/2013 Page 3 of 4 O.A. 82/2016.
8. Present appeal has been filed by the Intervener, Sh.Inderjeet Singh Bajaj, against the order dated 25.2.2016 passed by learned Joint Registrar, whereby the application, being I.A. 89/2016, seeking impleadment to the present suit was dismissed by the Joint Registrar.
9. Learned counsel for the intervener submits that I.A. 89/2016 was dismissed by the Joint Registrar on the ground that the intervener is not a close legal heir of late Sh.Gyan Singh Bajaj as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Counsel further submits that in the impugned order, the learned Joint Registrar had observed that the intervenor is the son of defendant no.1 and grandson of Sh.Gyan Singh Bajaj.
10. Heard. It may be noticed that while passing the order dated 25.2.2016, the Joint Registrar had noticed that even as per I.A. 89/2016, the suit property was purchased by late Sh.Gyan Singh Bajaj, out of his own funds, however, counsel for the intervener clarifies that although it has been mentioned in para 1 of I.A. 89/2016 but a complete reading of I.A. 89/2016 would show that it is the case of the applicant that the property was purchased out of the joint family funds.
11. Having regard to the fact that the present suit already stands decreed, I find no infirmity in the order dated 25.2.2016 passed by the Joint Registrar. The appeal in chamber is without any merit and the same is dismissed. I.A. 20598/2013 (O39R1& 2), 21019/2013 (O8R10, 21020/2014 (O10 11, 12 &
14) AND44492016 (O39R1& 2 CPC) 12. Applications stand disposed of in view of the order passed in the suit. G.S.SISTANI, J OCTOBER20 2016 msr CS(OS).2555/2013 Page 4 of 4