In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, a significant judgment was delivered regarding a partition dispute involving the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The case entails a complex scenario wherein the court had to make crucial decisions on the division of a jointly owned property. Stay tuned to understand the court’s final judgment and its implications on the involved parties.
Facts
- The Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are brothers and co-owners of the suit property
- The suit property was purchased via a registered sale deed on 21 December, 1975
- The property has been converted to a freehold property in the names of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 & 2
- Other siblings of the Plaintiff have relinquished their shares inherited from Late Smt. Amina Begum, making the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 exclusive owners
- The Plaintiff claims a 1/3rd share in the suit property
- A preliminary decree of partition is passed declaring the shares of the Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 as 1/3rd each
- Mr. Akhil Kumar Kulshrestha is appointed as the Local Commissioner to visit the property and suggest a mode of partition if dividing by metes and bounds is not feasible
Arguments
- Mr. Khan, counsel for the plaintiff, stated that the proposal by the defendants was not acceptable.
- The plaintiff wants the ground floor for himself.
- One suggestion was for Mr. Salahuddin to take the Ground Floor, Mr. Qayamuddin the First Floor, and the Plaintiff the Second Floor.
Analysis
- The Local Commissioner recommended physical partitioning of the Suit Property by metes and bounds, stating it is possible.
- All siblings were aware of the fact that the property No G-30 was bequeathed to other brothers by a registered Will.
- The option of physical partitioning was known to all parties.
- An Exchange Deed was executed between the brothers, with Jamaluddin now residing in B-7 and the Plaintiff residing in G-30.
- Defendant No.2 exchanged his share with Jamaluddin and now does not claim any right.
- The terrace and basement of the property can be divided into three equal parts for each party’s share.
- Court considered selling the Suit Property to a third party as there was no consensus among the parties on the floor allocation.
- Sale proceeds to be divided equally among the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1, and now Mr. Jamaluddin who has Defendant No.2’s share.
- There is no consensus between the parties regarding the claim to the Ground Floor of the property.
- The Local Commissioner suggested that the property be sold to a third party.
- The sale proceeds from the property would be divided equally amongst the parties involved.
Decision
- The property No B-7, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi is directed to be auctioned through M/s Railtel.
- Parties were asked to submit proposals for the mode of partition after the Commission on the Suit Property was over.
- The co-sharers of the suit property and their shares are as follows: Plaintiff – 1/3rd, Defendant No.1 – 1/3rd, Defendant No.2 (now Mr. Jamaluddin) – 1/3rd.
- Mr. Jamaluddin is impleaded as Defendant No.3.
- Amended memo of parties to be filed within one week.
- Auction of the property to be carried out through M/s Railtel Corporation Ltd. coordinated by the Local Commissioner.
- Plaintiff, Defendant No.1, and Mr. Jamaluddin to provide their valuations of the property for deciding the reserve price.
- Fee of the Local Commissioner fixed at Rs. 1,50,000 plus out of pocket expenses to be shared equally by Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1 and 3.
- A report to be submitted by M/s Railtel to the Court within three months for final decree confirmation.
- Basement and terrace can be used commonly by the plaintiff and defendants.
Case Title: NAWABUDDIN Vs. SALAHUDDIN & ANR. (2024:DHC:4056)
Case Number: CS(OS)-234/2020
