Ajay Miglani & Anr. v. Mona Sarin

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in Digest? V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a suit for partition and rendition of accounts. The case of the plaintiffs is that properties mentioned below are joint properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant, who have 1/3rd share each in them: a) 1/3rd share out of 50% share in property bearing No.D- 17B, Ground Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi; b) 1/3rd share out of 50% share in property bearing No.F- 2011:DHC:4944 237, Ground Floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi c) 1/3rd share in plot No.31-P in Panipat Officer Coop. House Building Society Ltd. Panipat vide Membership No.186; d) 1/3rd share in the bonds/shares of ICICI Limited, Reliance Capital and Birla Sunlife and Locker; e) 1/3rd share in the pension account with State Bank of Patiala, Sector 15, Faridabad Branch, Haryana.

2. The plaintiffs are the brothers of the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant states that there is no dispute that the properties, subject matter of this suit, are joint properties of the parties and they have 1/3rd share each in them, but, according to the defendant, the remaining half of property NoD-17B, Ground Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and Ground Floor of F-237, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was also owned by their father late Sh. K.L. Miglani and, therefore, the defendant has 1/3rd share in the whole of these two properties. The case of the plaintiffs with respect to these properties is that only 50% share in them was owned by late Sh. K.L. Miglani, father of the parties, whereas the remaining 50% in property No.D- 17B, Ground Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi is owned by plaintiff No.2, and 50% in ground floor of property No.F- 237, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi is owned by plaintiff No.1. Admittedly, the title deeds of these two properties stand in the joint name of the father of the plaintiffs and plaintiff No.2, whereas the title deed of property No.F-237, Ground Floor, New Delhi stands in the joint name of the father of the parties and plaintiff No.1. the learned counsel for the defendant states that the defendant will take such independent remedies as are open to her in law to prove that the whole of these two properties were owned by their father late Sh. K.L. Miglani and she has no objection to half share of these two properties being made, subject matter of the partition decree to be passed in this suit.

3. The learned counsel for the defendant further states that if there is any other property which is owned by the father of the parties that also needs to be disclosed by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for plaintiff states, on instructions from the plaintiff that no property other than the property disclosed in the suit was owned by late Sh. K.L. Miglani, father of the parties.

4. In these circumstances, with the consent of the parties, a preliminary decree for partition of the above referred properties is passed declaring that they have 1/3rd share each in these properties. The learned counsel for the defendant states if the defendant is able to identify any other property belonging to father of the parties, she would take such action as would be open to her in law with respect to such properties. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate, who is present in the Court, is appointed as Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition of the aforesaid properties by metes and bounds. He will submit his report within eight weeks. He can take the assistance of the Architect to be provided by the plaintiffs to assist him in giving report in terms of this order. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs.50,000/-, 1/3rd of which shall be paid by the defendant and 2/3rd by the plaintiffs. A preliminary decreesheet be drawn accordingly. Dasti.

(V.K. JAIN)

JUDGE SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 Ag