Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SUNITA AGGARWAL & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Nitesh Jain, Mr. Abhinav Makhi & Mr. Pranav Gopalakrishnan, Advocates (M-
9717955168)
Mr. Nand Kishore – husband of P-2 is present in person.
Mr. Vipul Mohan- son of P-1
Through: Mr. Anshul Mittal & Mr. Harshit Vashisht, Advs. for D-3 (M-
9899220567).
Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Varun Tyagi, Ms. Shreya Rao, Advocates for D-4 with D-4 in person. (M-9810444651)
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiffs Mrs. Sunita Aggarwal and Mrs. Anju Aggarwal, both daughters of Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal have filed the present suit seeking declaration/cancellation, partition and injunction against their father, Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal (Defendant No. 1), mother Smt. Pushpa Devi (Defendant No. 2) as also their four brothers Shri Ravi Shankar Aggarwal, Shri Vijay Shankar Aggarwal, Shri Shiv Shankar Aggarwal and Shri Prem Shankar Aggarwal who are Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, and a third party purchaser of one 2019:DHC:1497 of the properties, Smt. Bimla Kumari -Defendant No. 7.
2. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the Plaintiffs, together with their parents and brothers constitute a Hindu Undivided Family which has various assets, which are detailed in the plaint as under:- “i) An industrial property built up on an industrial plot of about 2232 sq. yards bearing municipal No. A-12, Lawrence Road, Delhi, purchased in the name of Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal, the Defendant No.1 herein; ii) An immovable property at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan standing in the name of Jai Complex Pvt. Ltd., a company held by two shareholders, namely, the Defendant No. 1 herein and Defendant No.4 herein. Not only the shares of the aforesaid company are held by the Defendants No. 1 and 4 herein but the said company has also been under the total control and management of the same. In fact, the said company though registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, is in fact in the nature of Hindu Undivided Family business, which was being carried on in the name of the said company only for the purposes of convenience and administrative reasons; iii) An immovable property situated at Kucha Chalan, Naya Bazar, Delhi - 110006 (the true and correct address thereof are known to the Defendants No. 1 to 6 herein; however, the identity of this property is accepted), standing in the names of Defendants No. 3 to 6 or any of them; iv) An immovable property situated at Ghaziabad, U.P. (the true and correct address thereof are known to the Defendants No. 1 to 6 herein; however, the identity of this property is accepted), was acquired in the name of the Defendant No. 2 herein. It is emphasized that the Defendant No. 2 never ever had or has any independent source of income, rather no source of income and has been totally dependent for all purposes on the Plaintiffs, the Defendants No. 1 and the Defendants No. 3 and 6 herein. In fact, the Defendant No. 2 is not even (fully) educated and can hardly put her signatures on any document. Thus, it is manifest that the said property in fact belonged to the Defendant No. l and / or the Hindu Undivided Family as stated later, though acquired in the name of Defendant No.2; and v) An immovable property constructed on a plot of land admeasuring about 500 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No. 401 in the Lal Dora Area of Village Qudipur, Delhi, acquired in the names of the Defendants No. 5 and 6 herein.”
3. The Plaintiff‟s case is that the entire family was living in A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi. The Plaintiffs were married in the 1980s. Though the properties were purchased in the name of the father, mother and brothers, they were meant for the enjoyment and benefit for the entire family. It is their case that sometime after the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, it was agreed between the parties that all the properties form part of the common hotchpotch.
4. The Plaintiffs came to know that a family settlement dated 14th September, 2009 was executed amongst their father and brothers without involving or including the Plaintiffs. In the said settlement, it was clearly described that the parties therein constituted a joint Hindu family. Since the factum of existence of the Joint Hindu Family was admitted, the Plaintiffs ought not to have been excluded from the settlement and from their legitimate share in the property of the HUF. Further, it is pleaded that the family settlement had an arbitration agreement which was invoked by one of the brothers, namely, Shri Ravi Shankar Aggarwal, Defendant No. 3 in Arbitration Petition No. 226/2011. In the said petition, a settlement dated 29th August, 2012 was entered into under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, vide which it was agreed that property bearing A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi would be sold and the sale consideration would be divided equally amongst the father and the brothers. This, according to the Plaintiffs, clearly establishes that a HUF existed and that the Plaintiffs were wrongly excluded from the settlement. Even in the said Arbitration Petition, the Plaintiffs were not impleaded. There was gross concealment by Defendant Nos. 1 and 3-6, who failed to inform the Court that the daughters of Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal had not been impleaded and that the settlement was being effected behind their back. Subsequently, the property was sold to Defendant No. 7.
5. The Plaintiffs acquired knowledge of the said sale to Defendant No. 7 of 50% of the property at A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi, and thereafter moved I.A. 14082/2016 and 14081/2016, wherein they respectively sought impleadment in the arbitration petition and ad-interim injunction against any third party interest being created in the suit properties. In the said proceedings, a further 50% of A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi was permitted to be sold, after directing that the sale consideration would be deposited in this Court and would be disbursed subject to the outcome of the present suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs pray for a declaration that the settlement agreement entered into in Arbitration Petition 226/2011 is illegal and unlawful and for cancelling the sale transactions which have been executed. It is also prayed that a preliminary decree for partition be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants, holding that the Plaintiffs each have 1/7th share in the assets of the Joint Hindu Family.
6. In their written statements, all the Defendants have disputed the existence of a Joint Hindu Family or a HUF. In the written statements, the stand of all the Defendants is consistent that the Plaintiffs have no right in the property and that the attempt of the Plaintiffs is merely to grab the property of the Defendants. It is further the stand of all the Defendants that property bearing A-12, Lawrence Road, Delhi is not a HUF property, and is the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1.
7. In the written statement of Defendant No. 4, it is claimed that the family settlement dated 14th September, 2009 was signed under a mistake and that he was informed that it was for „tax purposes‟ that the said family settlement was being signed. It is also pleaded that since the family settlement is insufficiently stamped and unregistered, the same is inadmissible in evidence. The filing of the Arbitration Petition is admitted, as is the sale of ½ portion of A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 7.[2] crores in terms of sale deed dated 2nd July, 2014. It is also admitted that the Plaintiffs regularly visited Defendant Nos. 1 to 6. It is, however, claimed that the Plaintiffs were aware of the sale of the property and that it had been demolished.
8. In the written statement of Defendant No. 3, it is admitted that the family settlement dated 14th September, 2009 was drawn up due to disputes and differences amongst the Defendants in whose names the various properties existed. The use of the term „Joint Hindu Family‟ in the said family settlement was said to have been used in a limited context and the “suit properties were loosely termed as belonging to Joint Hindu Family”.
9. A joint written statement has been filed by Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 wherein the existence of the HUF is disputed. It is claimed that the property is the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1 and that at no point in time, was any HUF formed.
10. When the present suit was filed, the same was placed before the Court dealing with Arbitration Petition 226/2011. On 16th January, 2017, the following order was passed in the said petition:- “IA Nos. 507/2017 & 508/2017 (for delay)
1. For the reasons stated therein, the delay of 30 days in filing replies to IA Nos. 14081 and 14082 of 2016 is condoned. The replies are taken on record. IA Nos. 14082/2016 (for impleadment)
2. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. Mrs. Sunita Aggarwal and Mrs. Anju Aggarwal are impleaded as Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the petition. IA Nos.14081/2016 & 327/2017
3. Mr. B.B. Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the Applicant is candid that the Applicants have not able to locate any buyer who is prepared to offer more than what is already deposited in this Court by Smt. Bimla Kumari Gupta towards sale consideration of the property at A-12, Lawrence Road, New Delhi.
4. In that view of the matter, the applications are disposed of with the following directions;
(i) The interim order dated 15th November, 2016 is vacated;
(ii) The money that stands deposited in the Court will await further orders in CS (OS) 11 of 2017;
(iii) The Court records that subject to what is ordered hereafter, none of the parties, including the applicants, has any objection to the sale deed being executed in favour of the buyer, Smt. Bimla Kumari Gupta, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 19th July 2016;
(iv) all the parties through counsel shall meet either in the chamber of Mr. Mittal or Mr. Gupta on a mutual convenient date and time to work out an acceptable solution to address the grievance of the Applicants, being sisters of the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4;
(v) in executing the sale deed in favour of Smt. Bimla
5. The applications are disposed of in the above terms. I.A Nos. 9059/2014,158/2016,3023/2016,5955/2016, 5956/2016
6. In view of the above orders, these applications are also disposed of.
7. Order be given dasti under the signature of the
11. As per the above order, the remaining 50% of the property at A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi was sold to Defendant No. 7 and the money was deposited before this Court. Mediation was attempted between the parties, however, the same did not fructify. Defendant No. 7, who purchased the property was deleted from the array of parties on 26th October, 2018. The parties have moved various applications which are as under:i. I.A. No. 349/2017 filed by the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, ii. I.A. No. 10337/2018 filed by Defendant No. 3, under Section 151 CPC seeking release of admitted share out of the money deposited, iii. I.A. No. 12634/2018 filed by Defendant No. 4 under Section 151 CPC seeking release of admitted share out of the money deposited, iv. I.A. No. 12633/2018 filed by Defendant No. 4 under Order
7 Rule 11 (Deficient Court Fees) v. Crl. M.A. No. 409/2019 filed by the Plaintiff under Section 340 r/w Section 195 (1) b of the Cr. PC
12. The submission of Mr. Jayant Mehta, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs is that that the settlement agreement dated 14th September, 2009 is an admitted document between the parties and since the Defendants themselves described the properties as belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family or Joint Hindu Family, they cannot be allowed to resile from the same. The document being an admitted document, a preliminary decree for partition is liable to be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs, declaring them each as owners of 1/7th share in the property. Further, on instructions he submits that if each of the Plaintiffs is paid 1/7th share in the sale consideration received from the sale of A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi, then they are willing to give up their claim to the other properties.
13. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the Defendants that the family settlement being an unregistered document cannot be considered admissible in evidence. Further, Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 seek their share on the basis of the settlement entered into in Arbitration Petition No. 226/2011 and not on the basis that the properties are belonging to a HUF. It is submitted that all the properties are self acquired properties of the father and the brothers and the Plaintiffs having been married much earlier, in the 1980s, are not entitled to any share. The Defendants rely on the following judgments: i. Neel Dayal and Ors. v Someshwar Dayal and Ors. CS (OS) 168/2016, Decided on 22nd March, 2017 ii. A.N. Kaul v Neerja Kaul and Anr. C.R.P. 189/2017, Decided on 3rd July, 2018 iii. Saroj Salkan v Huma Singh & Ors., CS(OS) 683/2007, Decided on 5th May, 2016 iv. Surender Kumar v Dhani Ram & Ors., CS(OS) 1737/2012, Decided on 18th January, 2011
14. A perusal of the family settlement shows that repeatedly in the said document, the assets are referred to as belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family/ Joint Hindu Family. An extract of the family settlement is set out below:- “ This family Settlement is made and executed at Delhi on the 14th day of September, 2009 by and between: Sh. Tej Ram Aggarwal, S/o Late Jai Narain R/o. DDA Flat No. 631, Sector-28, Rohini, Delhi – 110085; hereinafter called the Party No. 1 (First Party); AND Sh. Vijay Shankar Aggarwal, S/o Sh. Tej Ram Aggarwal, R/o C-9/111, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi: hereinafter called the Party No. 2 (Second Party); AND Sh. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal, S/o Sh. Tej Ram Aggarwal, R/o. B-18, Rose Apartments, Sector-14 Extension, Rohini, Delhi: hereinafter called the party No. 3 (Third Party); AND Sh. Shiv Shankar Aggarwal, S/o. Tej Ram Aggarwal, R/o. MU-74, First Floor, Pitampura, Delhi-110088: hereinafter called the Party No. 4 (Fourth Party) AND Sh. Prem Shankar Aggarwal, S/o. Tej Ram Aggarwal, R/o. DDA Flat No. 631, Sector-28, Rohini, Delhi- 110085 hereinafter called the Party No. 5 (Fifth Party) Expression First Party, Second Party, Third Party, Fourth Party and Fifth Party mean and include the legal heirs, successors, assignees, agents, administrators, servants, nominees, executors, employees, attorneys and/or any other person claiming through or on behalf of respective parties. Whereas Parties Nos. 1 to 5 as mentioned above constitutes a Joint Hindu Family. The Assets of the Hindu Undivided Family are as detailed below:- IMMOVEABLE ASSETS
1. Built up industrial property No. A-12, Lawrence Road, Delhi -110035 in the name of Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal, Father, measuring 2232 Sq. Yds;
2. Property at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, in the name of Jai Complex Private Limited and the share holder of the said company are Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal and Shri Vijay Shankar Aggarwal Son Second Co-owner.
3. Property at Kucha Chelan, Naya Bazar, Delhi- 110006 in the name of Shri Vijay Shankar Aggarwal (Son) and the properties (whether sold or unsold) mentioned in the Will of Shri Jai Narain Aggarwal, Grand Father of (1) Shri Vijay Shankar Aggarwal, (2) Shri Ravi Shankar Aggarwal, (3) Shri Shiv Shankar Aggarwal, (4) Shri Prem Shankar Aggarwal and father of Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal.
4. Property at Ghaziabad in the name of Smt. Pushpa Devi, W/o Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal First Party to Joint Hindu Family.
5. Property built on Plot of Land of Area measuring 500 Sq. Yds., out of Khasra No. 401, situated in the Lal Dora of village Qadipur, Delhi in the name of Shri Shiv Shankar Aggarwal, Fourth Party to Joint Hindu Family and Shri Prem Shankar Aggarwal, Fifth Party to Joint Hindu Family. And whereas with a view to avoid any dispute in future regarding the above said properties, which were the assets of Hindu Joint Family the first Party to this Deed has decided to enter into family settlement with his wife and children regarding the above detailed immoveable properties. And Whereas the parties do not wish to continue the above immoveable assets in the status of Hindu Joint Family. Hence, the parties have hereby effected a complete partition of the assets in the following manner which has been agreed mutually between co-owners (all five) all Hindu Joint Family:-
1. That all the above said parties shall be owners of the above said properties in equal ratio i.e., 20% each.
2. That if any party wants to retain the property in his favour then in that case the market value of the said property will be ascertained and accordingly the other parties will be paid their shares of the property by the party retaining the property.
3. That if the property is sold then the sale consideration will be divided equally between the above said parties.
4. The parties hereto have unequivocally and irrevocable acknowledged that they have disrupted the Hindu Undivided Family assets completely by dividing all the aforesaid assets in the manner mentioned above and thus the above stated assets cease to be the assets of Hindu Undivided family in future.
5. The ownership status and possession held by all five co-owners shall remain with them as it is till all assets of Hindu Undivided Family are settled among the parties at A-12, Lawrence Road, Delhi.
6. No grandsons of Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal will enter in the premises at property No. A-12, Lawrence Road, Delhi till the matter is settled among the Co-owners.
7. Every party is bound to agree to the decision of the Arbitrators mutually appointed by the above said parties which are as follows:- (a) Sh. J.B. Gupta, S/o. Late S. L. Gupta R/o. A-1/294, Janakpuri, New Delhi (b) Sh. Badri Bansal, S/o. Late Hira Lal Bansal R/o. F-171, Mansarovar Garden, Delhi-110015 In witness whereof, the parties has signed this Family Settlement at Delhi on 14.09.2009 in the presence of the following witnesses:-
1. Sd/- Sd/-First Party Vijay Kumar Goel, Advocate 2942/2018, Trinagar, Delhi35 Sd/-Second Party
2. Sd/- Nirupama Aggarwal Sd/-Third Party B-18, Rose Apartment Sector-14, Rohini. Sd/- Fourth Party Sd/- Fifth Party”
15. Thereafter, a complaint was also filed by Defendant No. 3, Ravi Shankar Aggarwal, wherein it was repeatedly stated that he is a part of a Hindu Undivided Family which was dissolved by family settlement dated 14th September, 2009. An extract of the said complaint dated 29th April, 2011 is set out below:- “To The SHO P.S. Keshav Puram, Delhi Sub: Intimation regarding harassment, illegal activities and threat to life. Respected Sir, The undersigned respectfully submits the following few lines for necessary Intimation and action at the earliest.
1. The undersigned was a member of Hindu Undivided Family comprising of Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal, Shri Vijay Shankar Aggarwal, Shri Ravi Shankar Aggarwal (the undersigned), Shri Shiv Shankar Aggarwal and Shri Prem Shankar Aggarwal.
2. The said Hindu Undivided Family was dissolved vide Family Settlement dated-14.09.2009 which was duly executed by and between all the members.
3 The undersigned is in possession and occupied the major portion of property No.A-12, Lawrance Road, Delhi which is clearly demarcated in the site plan attached herewith.
4. As per clause 7 of the Family Settlement dated 14.09.2009 It was specifically agreed between the members that no grandsons of Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal will enter in the premises at property No. A-12, Lawrance. Road, Delhi till the matter is settled among the Co-owners.
5. The object and purpose of incorporation of Clause 7 specifically in the Family Settlement was to restrain the grand sons more specifically Shri Ankur Aggarwal,, son of Shri. Vijay Shankar Aggarwal from entering into premises No.A-12, Lawrance Road, Delhi. Shri Ankur Aggarwal had entered into the above-said premises, created nuisance and tried to take forcible possession of the above premises and when the undersigned objected to it, he attacked the undersigned with a sharp edged weapon. Shri Ankur Aggarwal had repeated the incidents thrice. The last attack is evident from the MLC No.ME-72980 done at BJRM Hospital, Delhi in which an attack with a sharp edged weapon was done on the neck of the undersigned.
6. The Undersigned has now received a threat to his life again from Shri Vijay Shankar Aggarwal and his son Shri Ankur Aggarwal. The undersigned apprehends that any untoward incident may not happen at the hands of Shri. Vijay Shankar Aggarwal and his son Shri Ankur Aggarwal for which the undersigned is seeking indulgence of your good self.
7. Not only this, even Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal has now entered into conspiracy with the above said Shri Vijay Shankar Aggarwal and his son Shri Ankur Aggarwal and has now started threatening the undersigned that he would commit suicide and falsely implicate the undersigned for the same. I therefore request your good self to do the needful as you may deem fit and proper so as to protect my life and property and initiate necessary legal proceedings against the culprits at the earliest. This is for your information and necessary action. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Ravi Shankar Aggarwal
16. Thereafter, Mr. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal-Defendant No. 3 filed Arbitration Petition 226/2011 in which repeated averments have been made that the father and the sons together constitute a Joint Hindu Family. In the said petition, on the basis of the arbitration clause in the settlement agreement dated 14th September, 2009, Defendant No. 3 prayed for appointment of an arbitrator. On behalf of Defendant No. 1, a reply was filed claiming that the properties were the self-acquired properties of Shri. Tej Ram Aggarwal and Defendant No. 3 had no claim, right or interest in the properties. It was also claimed that the properties were not joint family properties. Similar was the stand taken by the other Defendants. However, in the said arbitration petition, a settlement agreement dated 29th August, 2012 was entered into between the father and all the brothers, wherein they agreed to sell property bearing A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi and the sale consideration was to be distributed amongst them equally. One of the clauses in the agreement also revoked and cancelled the family settlement dated 14th September, 2009. Defendant No. 3 was also to be paid an additional sum of Rs. 28,00,000/- by Defendant No. 1 to relinquish his rights and claims in all the remaining properties. The clause in the Settlement Agreement revoking the Family Settlement is set out below: “That the parties by signing the present Agreement have hereby unequivocally cancelled, revoked and put an end to all prior Agreements, settlements etc. especially the family settlement dt. 14.09.2009 subject to the terms as agreed in the present Settlement Agreement. ”
17. The question which thus arises is whether a HUF or a Joint Hindu Family exists and whether the Plaintiffs are a part of the same. The basis of the Plaintiff‟s case that there is a HUF or Joint Hindu Family, is family settlement dated 14th September, 2009. In so far as Defendant No. 3 is concerned, he had also in Arbitration Petition 226/2011 admitted to the existence of the HUF/Joint Hindu Family. However, in so far as the father is concerned, he has always taken a consistent stand that the property is self acquired. The family settlement, which stands revoked, by itself, therefore, cannot become the basis to hold that there exists a HUF or a Joint Hindu Family without further evidence being adduced in the matter. The Plaintiffs would have to establish from other evidence to show that there was an intention amongst the parties to establish HUF, as held in Neel Dayal and Ors. v Someshwar Dayal and Ors. CS (OS) 168/2016, Decided on 22nd March, 2017.
It is clear that there cannot be presumption of the existence of a HUF and clear intention has to be ascertained from other surrounding circumstances.
18. The family settlement dated 14th September, 2009 was signed only among the father and the four brothers, who are all parties to the settlement agreement dated 29th August, 2012. There is no doubt about the fact that in the Arbitration Petition, as also in the settlement agreements, the Plaintiffs ought to have been made parties. The case of the Defendants in their written statements is that the Plaintiffs were well aware of the sale of A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi and they have never objected to the same. If that is so, they ought to have impleaded the Plaintiffs or executed the settlement in their presence. Their conduct of not doing so, has led to the present litigation.
19. It is an admitted position that out of the sale consideration of Rs. 7.20 crores received from the sale of 50% of property bearing A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi, the same has been divided amongst the father and the brothers without giving any share to the sisters. It was under these circumstances that the remaining Rs. 7.50 crores, which is the sale consideration for the other 50% of the property was directed to be deposited in this Court. The Family settlement is categorical that there exists a joint Hindu family/HUF which was admitted between the father and the brothers. Parties to the Family Settlement decided to wind up the HUF/Joint Hindu family assets and then divide the same amongst themselves. However, the same was revoked by the Settlement Agreement entered into in the Arbitration Petition. The Settlement Agreement excluded the Plaintiffs from any share – thus the same would, prima facie, not be valid and legal if the existence of the HUF/Joint Hindu Family is not disputed. The Plaintiffs having been excluded, the property merely remained in the name of the father and even the Settlement Agreement which was entered into excluding the sisters may not be valid. These issues would have to be thrashed out at trial. Owing to the pleadings in the Arbitration Petition and the family settlement dated 14th September, 2009, it cannot also be held that a Joint Hindu Family/HUF did not exist. Thus, the suit requires to go to trial. Preliminary decree for partition cannot be granted at this stage.
20. Parties to file their respective affidavits of admission/denial of documents. List for marking of documents before Joint Registrar on 25th April, 2019.
21. List before Court on 21st May, 2019. I.A. No. 349/2017
22. The property No. A-12 Lawrence Road, Delhi has already been disposed of. Thus, no further orders are called for in I.A. 349/2017 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 except to direct that all the parties who are in possession and who own the properties mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Application shall maintain status quo. Property at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan is in the name of the company Jai Complex Pvt. Ltd., which has two shareholders, i.e., the father and the Defendant No 4. Jai Complex Private Limited shall maintain status quo in respect of title and possession of the property at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. Property No. 3 at Kucha Chalan, Naya Bazar, Delhi is in the name of Defendant No. 4. Till the present suit is decided, status quo shall be maintained. The Ghaziabad property is in the name of Defendant No. 2, the mother. Status quo as to title and possession shall also be maintained in respect of the said property. Property no. 5, Khasra No.401 in the Lal Dora Area of Village Qadipur, Delhi is in the name of two brothers, Defendant Nos. 5 and 6. They shall also maintain status quo as to title and possession. I.A. 349/2017 is disposed of with these directions. IA No. 10337/2018 and 12634/2018
23. These are applications filed by the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 seeking release of their share of the amount of Rs. 7.[5] crores received from the sale of 50% of the property bearing A-12, Lawrence Road, Delhi. The Defendants have admitted that the brothers have already received their share of the sale consideration from the sale of the first 50% of the Lawrence Road property. No part of the said amount is deposited in the Court and the Plaintiffs did not receive any share in the same. Since the rights of the Plaintiffs have to be adjudicated in trial and there are several properties in issue, at this stage, the share of the Plaintiffs deserves to be safeguarded. Except the amount lying deposited in this Court, there is no other amount to secure the interests of the Plaintiff. Moreover, the release is being sought by the brothers on the basis of the settlement agreement which itself was entered into by excluding the sisters. Thus, the settlement agreement dated 29th August, 2012 is under a cloud. Under these circumstances, till the respective shares of the parties are divided and determined, the brothers are not entitled to release of the amounts. IA. 12633/2018.
24. This is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-payment of court fee. The Defendants admit that the Plaintiffs visited the Defendants from time to time. The question as to whether any of the belongings of the Plaintiffs are lying in any of the premises in possession of the Defendants would have to be established in trial. Recording the Plaintiffs‟ undertaking that if the court determines, that additional court fee would be payable, the same would be deposited by the Plaintiffs, the I.A is disposed of and the issue as to deficiency of court fee shall be framed at the time of settlement of issues.
25. I.A. is disposed of. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 409/2019.
26. The present application has been filed under Section 340 Cr. P.C. seeking that action be taken against the non-applicant, Shri Ravi Shankar Aggarwal. The basis of the application is that Shri Ravi Shankar Aggarwal was the Petitioner in Arbitration Petition 226/2011 wherein he repeatedly admitted the existence of the HUF and Joint Hindu Family. He also filed the police complaint dated 29th April, 2011 wherein he admitted the same. Thereafter, however, despite having admitted the existence of the HUF and Joint Hindu Family on various occasions, he has in the written statement filed in the present suit denied the existence of the Joint Hindu Family. These according to the Plaintiffs are false statements on oath which constitute giving false evidence and making false claims.
27. A perusal of the pleadings in the Arbitration Petition, the police complaint, a legal notice issued by the Defendant No. 3, Shri. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal dated 19th May 2011, as also the written statement filed in the present suit prima facie shows that Defendant No. 3 is making false statements. Accordingly, Defendant No.3 is directed to file a reply as to why orders under Section 340 ought not to be passed against him by this Court. Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Parties are directed to file their affidavit of admission/denial before the Joint Registrar within four weeks. List on 21st May, 2019.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MARCH 12, 2019 MR