Full Text
CS(OS) 635/2021
Date of Decision: 19.05.2025 IN THE MATTER OF:
RAJIV SINGAL .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Mr. Mohd. Talha, Mr. Ayush Dassi and Mr. Deepesh Kasana, Advs.
Through: Mr. Vikas Khatri and Mr. Manas Khatri, Advs. for D-1.
Mr. Nupam Billa, Adv. for D-2&3.
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The plaintiff and defendants herein are siblings and children of Late Smt. Darshana Devi and Late Sh. Hari Ram Singal.
3. The facts of the case would indicate that the suit property (a) i.e. Built up free hold property bearing i.e. property No.24, Block-B, area measuring 200 sq. yds., situated at CC Colony, R.P.Bagh, Delhi 110007, KUMAR KAURAV was purchased by Late Smt. Darshna Devi vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.04.1980. Furthermore, Late Sh. Hari Ram Singhal purchased suit property no. (b) i.e., Built up free hold property bearing no. 43, Block no.25, area measuring 200 sq. yds., situated in Roshanara Extension Scheme, Shakti Nagar, Delhi -110007 vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.08.2003.
4. In 2010, Late Hari Ram Singhal raised construction over suit property No. (b) and inducted two tenants. On 30.05.2021, Sh. Hari Ram Singhal expired intestate. Therefore, the instant suit has been filed for the following reliefs:
Built up free hold property bearing no. 24, Block -B, area measuring 200 sq. yds. situated at CC Colony,R.P. Bagh, Delhi -110007. AND Built up free hold property bearing no. 43, Block no. 25, area measuring 200 sq. yds. situated in Roshanara Extension Scheme, Shakti Nagar, Delhi -110007
2,92,500/- from Defendant no. 1 in favour of Plaintiff with respect to rent received from Suit Property no. a & b. Also the amount which fall due to the plaintiff against the defendants with pendetelite interest @ 24 % from the filing of suit and till the decretal amountis recovered.
5. It is seen that the suit is for the partition of the properties specifically mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the plaint.
6. Defendant No.1, i.e., Sh. Sanjeev Singhal (deceased), when had filed a written statement, had taken the position that his Late father, i.e., Sh. Hari Ram Singhal executed the Will dated 30.09.2020, bequeathing the suit properties in his favour.
7. Defendant Nos.[2] and 3 have filed their separate written statements and have supported the case of defendant No.1, reiterating the factum of execution of the Will. They also state that a relinquishment deed dated 14.03.2023 has been further executed by them in favour of defendant No.1.
8. By way of the said relinquishment deed, they state that 1/4th undivided share of each of defendant Nos.[2] and 3 have been bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff while pressing the instant application submits that if the relinquishment deed dated 14.03.2023 is considered in the right perspective, the same would clearly indicate that there was no Will in existence as propounded by defendant No.1. He further submits that relinquishment deed has been signed by defendant No.1, as well, and the reply of defendant No.1 to the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC unequivocally states that the relinquishment deed was executed as an abundant caution to ensure that the intentions of the executants of the Will, is fully satisfied.
10. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1, on the other hand, contends that the suit cannot be decreed against him. According to him, the relinquishment deed which was executed on 14.03.2023 is by the remaining defendants and defendant No.1 cannot be bound by the same. According to him, as to whether the relinquishment deed at all was executed will be the subject matter of the trial and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be considered to be an unequivocal admission on the part of defendant No.1.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the instant application is bereft of any merit and the trial will have to be proceeded. It is also submitted that the parties shall adduce their evidence and only then, the matter can be adjudicated.
12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record.
13. So far as the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC are concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and Others[1] has held that where a claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to pass a judgment in the favour of the plaintiff and to pass a decree on the admission. The object of the rule is to enable the parties to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. Paragraph No. 12 of the said decision read as under:
(2000) 7 SSC 120 entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed…”
14. Besides the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court in the case of the Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd 2, has held as under:
15. In the context of the aforesaid explication of legal position, if the pleadings made by the parties in the instant civil suit are perused, the same would indicate that in various paragraphs of the reply to application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, defendant No.1, unequivocally stated that the relinquishment deed was executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for putting an extra layer of safety to the said dispute as the Will was yet to be proved. The submissions of learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1, therefore, seem that notwithstanding the execution of the Will dated 30.09.2020, defendant Nos.[2] and 3, as an extra layer to secure the properties, executed the relinquishment deed. It, therefore, be noted that the factum of execution of the relinquishment deed by defendant Nos.[2] and 3 in favour of defendant
16. Thus, the only averment made by defendant No.1 to deny the partition is the execution of Will dated 30.09.2020. If the Will dated 30.09.2020 was in existence, there was no reason as to why the relinquishment deed dated 14.03.2023 has been executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1. It is also placed on record, by way of the written statement, that defendant No.1 does not only confirms the execution of the aforesaid relinquishment deed but he is even the signatory of the said document.
17. It is, thus, seen that submissions with respect to the purported unregistered Will dated 30.09.2020 are an afterthought, and the said plea is contrary to the material available on record i.e. relinquishment deed and the admission of defendant No.1 himself in paragraph No.8 of the reply to the instant application.
18. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the entitlement of parties to the extent of 1/4th share each of the parties has been admitted or otherwise.
19. The fact that defendant Nos.[2] and 3 are siblings of the plaintiff also remains undisputed. A perusal of the relinquishment deed indicates that on the death of Late Sh. Hari Ram Singhal, the releasor therein (defendant No.3) and the releasee therein (defendant No.1) became the co-owners and co-sharers to the extent of 1/4th undivided share in the property.
20. In view of the aforesaid, it is seen that there is no justified reason as to why the admission made by defendant No.1 should not be considered sufficient for decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
21. Accordingly, the preliminary decree is passed holding the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are all entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit properties (a) and (b).
22. Let the decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
23. Further, the Court appoints Ms. Katyayani Vajpayee, (Mobile NO. 8588064361, Email: katyayanivajpayee07@gmail.com), Advocate, as a Local Commissioner to divide the property by metes and bounds. The Local Commissioner shall also consider the interim orders passed earlier with respect to mesne profits.
24. Let the Local Commissioner to submit a report before the next date of hearing.
25. The Local Commissioner shall be entitled to Rs.2.[5] Lakhs towards remuneration. The same shall be paid by the plaintiff initially, however, shall be recoverable from the suit proceeds equivalent to the respect share of the parties.
26. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Local Commissioner through all permissible modes, including electronic.
27. Application stands disposed of. CS(OS) 635/2021
28. Let the matter be called out on 18.09.2025 for submission of the report of the Local Commissioner.